A New Party? Opportunists wait in the wings to seize upon a Lab-Con governing impasse

This weekend revealed that a number of rich donors are working on putting the pieces in place for a new political party. The revelation did not go over well, with a lot of criticism aimed at a party based on money first, and supporters second.

There is a strong impression among commentators that the plan is for a new party of neoliberalism and vague bureaucratic centrism, to unite the Blairite trend of New Labour with the Cameron and Osborne wing of the Conservative Party.

Is that really where the future of British politics lies?

Well the certainly times haven't been favourable to the Liberal Democrats, for instance, whose Orange Book wing that led them into The Coalition represents this same kind of neoliberal platform. They have largely been forgotten by the electorate - though there are more complex reasons for that.

Is a new neoliberal party the catalyst that will 'remoderate' an electorate that the 'centrists' perceive as being torn apart by the militant division between the Tories turning rightward and Labour turning leftward into Corbynist socialism?

Who would even lead such a party? Are Tony Blair and George Osborne hoping to make a dramatic political comeback? Maybe the plan is to push forward Yvette Cooper, the Labour leadership contender and figurehead of 'moderate' Labour?

This kind of party certainly seems to be a long term aim of Tony Blair, as we previously wrote about the direction he took at the helm of New Labour, steering Labour towards being a sort of big tent, middle ground, Democratic Party.

Blair and New Labour did not, however, complete their 'modernising' project. He and others tried to have things both ways - clinging to left-wing pretensions, and trade union backing and funding, even as they embraced right-wing economics - when an irreversible transformation of British politics was in their hands.

But that moment has passed. How would such a party even launch in the present climate and who could stand for them as a candidate?

The only practical route to such a party would be to rip the Labour Party in two, perhaps with some sort of agreement in place, at least in the short term, to not stand against each other - a possibility even Owen Jones has acknowledged.

The time when this might be a realistic possibility is not now, but in the aftermath of the next election if Labour do not beat the Conservatives. Would those who are anti-Corbyn leave or use the opportunity to topple him?

Whether to stand or walk is a dilemma the so-called centrists have been wrestling with. So far they have favoured staying and fighting. But with the strength of Labour's left-wing - pushing Corbyn to two leadership elections and gaining control of the party - if power isn't a prospect, then maybe the so-called centrists will see exiting as their only way to pursue their electoral agenda.

It has to be noted that new parties have little luck on the British political scene. The anti-EU movement had more success out of Parliament than breaking into it. Ripping current MPs and their seats from current parties, en masse, would increase the chance of success.

So another possibility, that might have more pull with 'moderate' Conservatives, would be for a party to launch in the aftermath of the election if Labour win only a minority government - but with more seats and votes than the Tories.

In that scenario, a new party would be able to prey on the opportunism of MPs on all sides of the House amid what would be seen as a very unstable impasse, with the Conservative Party humbled but Corbynism unable to deliver a majority.

However, there would seem to be little inspiring about a party of opportunists assembling to break an impasse. Would voters be grateful to them or see them as responsible leaders? And does such a 'party of the centre', a big tent Democratic Party, even have much of a vision to offer?

There is nothing convincing in any of this. It is still the view of The Alternative that - far more than a new party - we need political plurality and a Progressive Alliance fighting for a proportionally representative electoral system.

Transport Funding: The government created it's own problems and now they're getting in the way of the real debate

Photograph: 43207 Departs Leeds by Joshua Brown (License)

The government's homemade problems on transport rumbled on this weekend, with blowback from their cancellation of funding for infrastructure in the North. This can at best be described as falling at first hurdle.

Having a debate about funding at all ignores the guarantee of huge benefits that any investment produces and obscures the real, and much deeper, debate that comes after: how that funding is structured to best serve communities.

The current distraction began when the government cancelled the full electrification of the Manchester to Leeds rail links, which had been at the heart of plans for George Osborne's so-called 'Northern Powerhouse'.

In response Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, gathered the political and business leaders of the North to a summit. It's purpose was to call for long overdue investment in the transport infrastructure of the North.

Only together, argued Burnham, could Northern leaders achieve greater parity of funding and overturn a situation that has London receiving eight times more in investment than the North - recently expressed in the cancellation of Northern electrification plans prior to the approval of further investment in London.

Chris Grayling, the government transport secretary, responded to the anger at the government by following the Tories' longstanding approach: shifting responsibility. Grayling and transport ministers announced that it is on the North to develop plans for the government to fund - as if Burnham's summit was what it wanted all along.

The government also took time out to complain that it wasn't invited to the Northern summit. But the summit was clearly the first step in building the solidarity necessary to construct a collective negotiating platform. Burnham himself adopted a stern stance, saying patience has run out, that London cannot continue to be developed at the expense of the North.

George Osborne, the former Chancellor and now Evening Standard editor,  couldn't help but wade in. In what was seen as an attack on his successors for not following through on his own policies, Osborne called for Theresa May to relaunch her premiership on investment in the Northern railways that could help geographically rebalance the national economy.

There are plenty of reasons for the North to be disgruntled at the government for it's failure to deliver and not least is that infrastructure spending alone is a boost to a local economy.

In the long term it is an unflinching in it's positive affect on economic growth. But in the shorter term it also creates a lot of jobs and a lot of contracts from which local businesses can benefit.

The rail links themselves reduce the time and distance between key locations. That is a boost for business, widening their customer base and giving them access to the benefits of operating at scale. It's also a boost for workers, widening opportunities while reducing the time spent on a commute.

But there is a downside - and it is this that the questions, of whether to provide funds at all, delays and distracts from. The better connections, the widening of opportunity can also encourage centralisation.

As a business pursues cheaper ways to work and greater efficiency, they have a tendency to gather in key locations, close to important suppliers, partners and customers. That raises big questions about how this will all impact the local business environment.

It cannot be taken for granted that plans for transport links will be a good in themselves. We must ask how they will serve each area. The answers we come up with must empower people, and empower them where they are.

Getting to the roots of that is tackling a microcosm of the bigger problem with globalisation, which has left behind entire communities, concentrated growing wealth and opportunity, and excluded the welfare of ordinary people from it's expansion.

Averting those outcomes means services must be tied to and benefit local people. Whether that means local cooperative or municipal rail companies, or some sort of statutory reinvestment, or some other solution, communities must profit from their local services, not be drained by them.

It is in many ways the same as for the energy sector, where action is needed to counter the impact of operating at scale and centralisation that leaves communities disinherited from the product of their own regional resources - exploited instead for private gain.

But first, we must start that debate. That means first getting passed the Conservative austere reluctance to invest in the future. Public investment is beneficial. So let's get beyond that point, and get down to how to get services working for communities, not rendering them little more than glorified or abandoned suburbs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Osborne's damaged reputation encourages doubt in Treasury Brexit forecast - yet findings match those of other studies saying Brexit will be a blow to UK economy

The biggest issues, like accountability, have become international matters that require a multi-national response. In Europe, this international approach has encouraged not only prosperity, but shared prosperity.

The Chancellor has taken the opportunity presented by a UK Treasury department report released today, an intervention by the government likely to once again anger those in the Vote Leave camp, to stress how an exit would negatively affect the economy (BBC, 2016).

The Treasury decided to put front and centre its middle of three case studies, based on a Canada-EU style agreement, that suggested that a 6% hit to the economy would the result from an exit (Ahmed, 2016). For its 'best case' study, which involves following Norway and joining the European Economic Area, the treasury's numbers where closer to forecasts by other bodies (Chu, 2016) - which suggested smaller losses of 2-4%.

Those in Vote Leave have been quick to dismiss the forecasts on the simple grounds that Chancellor George Osborne and the Treasury have been so far from the mark, for so long on the economy (ITV, 2016) - a perfect demonstration of why reputation and the appearance of competence matter so much.

Even after years of missed targets, Osborne had managed to maintain the impression with the public that he, and his party, where the safest hands for the economy. Yet that image was massively weakened by the Budget 2016 debacle, when Iain Duncan Smith resigned and the Chancellor faced heavy criticism for high end tax cuts being laid out alongside cuts to disability welfare support (BBC, 2016{2}).

So with the Chancellor tarnished, where can we turn to verify the Treasury's findings?

Well, first of all, the Treasury's figures certainly concur with the other independent studies, despite variations, in saying that an exit from the European Union will be bad for the economy. That opinion is also shared by organisations ranging from the IMF, the overseers and facilitators of the global economy the International Monetary Fund, to the IFS, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (Allen & Asthana, 2016; BBC, 2016{3}).

Secondly, the idea of an EU exit having - at least in the short term - a negative impact on the economy has even been admitted by Boris Johnson, the most high profile supporter of the exit campaign (Stewart & Watt, 2016). At the core of why those in favour of exit say that this initial impact is worth experiencing, is to pursue a believed greater long term potential outside of the EU. Yet the exit campaign's own pretty extravagant claims must be treated with caution (Full Fact, 2016).

Even if post-exit economic prosperity - outmatching what might be expected in the EU - could be achieved, there are no guarantees that prosperity would be shared. The immediate benefit of any new investment would likely go straight into the hands of the rich and, as Ed Miliband stressed at the weekend, wealth in the hands of the rich doesn't trickle down but is instead stashed (Cadwalladr, 2016).

Reinforcing that point is the long standing aim of those on the 'pro-business' Right to 'repatriate powers' from EU regarding employment laws. The stated aim is to cut regulations pertaining to labour protections so as to make labour more flexible for businesses, cutting their costs. But that also means weakening the rights of workers (Farhat, 2014), and increasing the already precarious situation for people in work.

In contrast, the EU has built, gradually, an expanding market area, with free trade within and protection at the edge; with the free trade area being covered by rules and regulations that ensure protections for workers from unfairly low pay and poor treatment - on the basis of decisions made at the European level on the grounds that they affect everyone in Europe.

By building regulations into its system, the EU offers an alternative to the long standing debate between free trade and protection - lower prices and greater efficiency at the cost of precarity and low wages, versus the potential for higher wages and sheltered domestic production that comes with the risk of much higher prices and damage being done to international trade relationships through trade barriers.

In essence, the EU has built a pioneering model for the advancement, not just of free trade, but also of fair trade, where workers are protected and their contributions justly rewarded. Where the rights of workers, subject to multi-national corporations, are protected by corresponding multi-national agreements and cooperation (Stewart, 2016).

The world has gone global and multi-national. Corporations and wealthy individuals avoid tax across borders, globally and multi-nationally. If we want to work for the common good, if we want accountability, our horizons also have to broaden. The European Union undoubtedly needs reform to better live up to them. But achieving them is now a project that has to be completed internationally and the EU, warts and all, is the best medium we have in place at the moment.

Cameron & Osborne reached Easter Recess having survived another tough short term battle, but longer term dangers linger unaddressed from failure to invest

Approach of UK Conservative and Canada Liberal governments to their respective 2016 budgets were worlds apart. Photograph: Parliament of Canada in Ottawa from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

As Parliament went into its Easter Recess on Friday, it appeared that the Cameron Government had weathered the political storm caused by the budget. Controversies had weakened the government's position, but had not toppled it. Yet Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor Osborne have only won the week, as tends to be their criticised focus (Kuenssberg, 2016).

While they manage the short term, there are larger, longer term, dangers they're not addressing - not least of which is the long term danger of failing to invest. Cameron and Osborne like to talk of not leaving our debts to the next generation, yet there are debts other than fiscal to leave to the next generation. One deficit they are sure to leave behind is infrastructural (Yalnizyan, 2016).

It is interesting how different priorities can be on either side of the Atlantic. In Canada, their new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled his first budget. As promised during the election, it involved deliberately running deficits in order to fund public investment in rebuilding Canada and setting it up for the future (CBC News, 2015).

John McDonnell's focus as Shadow Chancellor has been to try and undermine the perception of the Conservatives as the economically competent party, that can be trusted with the national finances. In his response to the budget, he paid special attention to the Conservative habit of over-promising and under-delivering, especially when it comes to public investment (McDonnell & O'Connor, 2016).

McDonnell has expressed particular and repeated concern that the Conservatives keep sending out press releases launching projects and yet, as argues McDonnell, don't provide or secure adequate funding. Meanwhile, against the recommendations of the OECD and the IMF, Osborne has continued to let investment consistently fall as he pursues a budget surplus (McDonnell, 2016).

What is interesting this is not a trend that Osborne began, but is rather just fitting into. Public investment in the UK has been falling steadily for the better part of fifty years (Thornsby, 2016). At the last election, both Labour and the Lib Dems wanted to put aside money for public investment, exempt from the efforts to balance the budget, but their efforts were timid due to lingering doubts about ignoring the debt or deficit in the short term to pursue a longer view.

While these doubts are being harboured in the UK, in Canada the situation couldn't be more different. At the last election the Conservatives were defeated by the Liberals coming from third place into a sweeping majority while promising to run deficits in order to fund economy growing public investment (CBC News, 2015).

Now there were certainly other aspects of the Liberal approach that helped them over the finishing line - not the least the fact that none of the parties leaders were Stephen Harper. The Trudeau campaign was open, relaxed and friendly with the public and the offer of limited-deficit funded public investment in infrastructure cannot be discounted as a factor (The National, 2016).

Yet it would seem to have only been possible to propose those deficits because the Liberals did not have the weight of a reputation for fiscal irresponsibility on their shoulders. Pre-election polls suggested that the public not only trusted the Liberals the most on the economy, but also believed they would be the most likely to have a positive impact on the economy (CTV News, 2015) - and aligned more with their promise to invest in infrastructure rather than simply cut taxes and balance the books.

While tackling the Conservative reputation, Shadow Chancellor McDonnell has also been trying to rebuild one for Labour. Bringing on a team of advisors, he has taken them on tour where, speaking across the country, they have explained how negative austerity has been and what might be possible in its place.

No one has typified this more than economist Mariana Mazzucato. In her own work, and in her work advising Labour, Mazzucato has consistently argued that the private sector is too risk averse and too short term in its thinking to handle the kind of positive long term investment that the public sector excels at (Mazzucato, 2013{2}).

In fact, if anything, she suggests that the private sector leeches off of public investment - privatising the rewards (Mazzucato, 2013). For those wedded to the fear of progressives forever being labelled as high spending, controlling statists, Mazzucato's call if not for a bigger state, but for a much easier to stomach smarter state (Mazzucato, 2014). A state that promotes growth by making smart investments where the private sector only hinders or won't take the risk; a state that promotes justice by seeing more of the reward for public efforts returned to the public.

The second, and maybe harder, part that follows the building of a reputation, is maintaining it. In Canada, the Liberals have been smart, deliberately managing expectations (Evans, 2016). While every $1 of infrastructure spending can lead to much bigger revenue returns - what Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, refers to as a virtuous cycle of investment (Taylor, 2016; Gray, 2016) -  they have nonetheless managed their forecasts down, leaving themselves plenty of headroom for showing the positive impact of their policies.

Public investment is important. In infrastructure, in education, in housing, in healthcare. All of these materially benefit everyone, even tackle inequality. Yet despite the Chancellor's obvious pleasure at announcing investment projects, there has been little to back it up (Pidd, 2015; Boffey, 2015) - with announcements seemingly serving as publicity to encourage private investment instead of the making of public commitments.

Sooner or later, the public will have to face the reality of the Conservative failure to invest - in education; in affordable housing; in technology, science and research. Long term public investment will be missed when the reality of selfish, short term, private investment is grasped. In the meantime, progressives have to do what they can, building the credibility of the argument for a smarter state that invests in the common good.

Ideology in politics is unavoidable, but transparency should be as well - we need the facts to scrutinise policies and the societal ideal they are designed to build

As Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission and Prime Minister of Italy, put it: the incorrect way to use facts is as a drunk uses lamp posts - more for support than for illumination. Photograph: Lamp Post in Rome from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Yesterday, George Osborne went before the Commons Treasury Committee to answer more detailed questions on the budget he announced last Wednesday (Sparrow, 2016). The Chancellor and his budget came in for some difficult questions.

During the hearing it was disclosed that, since the Coalition ended, the Chancellor had stopped analysis that would have showed, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) analysis shows, that the budget appeared to be redistributing money from the poorest to the richest (Stone, 2016). The Chancellor's defence was that he believed that the statistics provided could be misleading, and make deficit reduction look like "a bad thing".

According to both Iain Duncan Smith and the IFS, the welfare changes will disproportionately - for the obvious reason that welfare is mostly needed by those in lower incomes - hurt the poorest 20% (Inman, 2016). It was this fact that Osborne was accused of attempting to hide by changing the way the Treasury analysed the budget impact.

Playing with facts to suit political purpose is bad enough on its own. But this was also the suppression of facts - showing austerity and deficit reduction, at the present time and by the present methods, appear to be disproportionately damaging to the poor - in order to protect an ideological political project (Dudman, 2016).

Yet the problem is not so much the ideological motivation. As Romano Prodi put it, the incorrect approach to using facts is as a drunk uses lamp posts - for support rather than illumination.

In order to reduce so called 'welfare dependence', Osborne has ignored the data in order to treat welfare as the problem in and of itself - rather than a symptom. That means ignoring the fact that high welfare bills are the result of its corrective role.

In reality, welfare at its best is a safety net that helps to guarantee basic freedoms and at worst can be criticised as a form of corporate welfare, when policies like tax credits or the personal allowance subsidise companies paying low wages - but either way it is a redistributive mechanism that anchors the affluence of the rich to the wellbeing of the poor.

In both cases a high welfare bill is a symptom. It represents people struggling with low or no incomes, a lack of access to affordable housing and a lack of opportunity (Johnson, 2015). But as conditions improve, as the low incomes turn into living incomes, housing becomes more affordable and greater opportunity spreads, the welfare bill decreases.

Ideology is an inescapable aspect of politics. It is the philosophical view of what the world is, the ethics of how to behave on a personal level and the shaping of society around those beliefs to enhance them and produce the ideal outcomes. But that is no excuse for a lack of transparency.

If the Chancellor believes that there is a positive outcome in the changes he is making, he should have no fear in these statistics. He should be able to explain how his changes fit his ideological narrative, and produce, from his perspective, a positive outcome.

Instead of trusting people with the facts, the people are shown fragments designed to fit a narrative. If people are to hold those in public office to account they need the facts. Vigilance can only do so much, without access to the facts and openness from public office holders and parties as to the big picture, broad context narrative, that they see written in the data.

Britain's tented Hoovervilles show the reality of the humanitarian crisis behind the debt and deficit obsession of the Great Recession

Desperation, in the time of recession and austerity, has led to tented encampments springing up across the UK. This one lies a stones throw from Manchester Piccadilly station.

Iain Duncan Smith framed his resignation as the drastic last straw of a reformer, who's efforts were curtailed by the Chancellor's obsession with austerity (Asthana & Stewart, 2016; Peston, 2016). Whatever the true conviction behind the claim, it highlights something incredibly important.

The economic crisis, to which the Conservatives have ever been keen to keep the eye drawn in the last six years, has masked a wider humanitarian crisis. Only one small moment of the Chancellor's budget statement was devoted to it. He told Members of Parliament that:

"Because under this Government we are not prepared to let people be left behind, I am also announcing a major new package of support worth over £115 million to support those who are homeless and to reduce rough sleeping."

The government tried hard during the election the evade the issue, despite attempts to confront the PM directly with the fact that rising numbers of people were using food banks (Channel 4, 2015; Worrall, 2015). Yet the fact remains that homelessness is still rising (Gentleman, 2016).

In his response to the budget, Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the Chancellor's package of assistance, but stressed that rising homelessness was the result of desperate under-investment by the Conservative government (BBC, 2016{2}). A lack of investment which had starved local government of the resources to help and housing associations of the capacity to offer shelter.

While the Chancellor's budget did offer some funds to 'reduce rough sleeping', it was in reality much less than he previously cut from housing support - estimated at only "£1 in every £5" by Shadow Housing Minister John Healey (Healey, 2016).

It is, however, something more than the approach of some local councils to rough sleeping, which has been less than humanitarian (Ellis-Petersen, 2015). Yet even harsh measures haven't been enough to stop the emergence of small, and not so small, shanty towns springing up in places like Manchester, like the Hoovervilles of the 1920s and 1930s.

Europe and the other half of the crisis

The living encamped amongst the dead, along the Rue Richard through the Cimetière du Montparnasse, in Southern Paris, where tents line the road.

On the face of it, the fact that this is as much a broader European as a specifically British problem, may seem to exonerate the Chancellor and his policies. After all, it would be unfair to blame Osborne for the living lodging amongst the dead on the Rue Richard, at the Cimetière du Montparnasse in Paris.

Yet while Osborne has no part in French system - where, in response to their own crisis, supermarkets are no longer being allowed to throw away surplus food and must donate it instead to help those in need of handouts (Derambarsh, 2016) - he does have a role in the other half of the crisis.

War on Europe's borders has led to a second element of the humanitarian crisis: an influx of refugees, for which Europe was not necessarily lacking in resources to tackle, but certainly appeared unprepared. With the British government unwilling to take on the burden of the refugees, a camp sprang up on the British border at Calais.

That camp grew to become a large slum town, administered by aid workers running soup kitchens and handing out charitable donations. But even that temporary solution could not last and the camp is now being broken up, by force, in order to disperse the refugees (Weaver & Walker, 2016).

Hoover and the Great Depression

As President, Herbert Hoover oversaw the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression. Photograph: Herbert Hoover by Opus Penguin (License) (Cropped)

Osborne's approach, pulling back the state and public investment and looking to free markets and civil society to step in to the breach, has made him seem like a man more concerned about balancing his chequebook than acting in the face of a crisis. With that image, he risks receiving the same reputation that marred President Hoover during the Great Depression, as a 'do-nothing' (Leuchtenburg, 2009).

It isn't hard to draw comparisons between some key aspects of the approaches of George Osborne and Herbert Hoover. As US Secretary of Commerce, for two administrations between 1921 and 1928, Hoover was a follower of the efficiency movement - pursuing the ridding of inefficiency and waste from the economy (Hawley, 2006).

As when Osborne's Conservatives came to power in 2010 advocating for a 'Big Society' (Rigby, 2016), Hoover believed that the means of achieving his economic aims was 'volunteerism', as opposed to direction from government - trusting to, and nominally supporting, individual initiative, typified by his role as director of American charitable relief efforts in post-war Europe, particularly in Belgium.

His subsequent time as President, from 1929 and 1933, was however overshadowed by the Wall Street Crash and the beginning of the Great Depression that saw the poor of New York living in Central Park in tented encampments - one of many American shanty towns that became known as 'Hooverville'.

Hoover made more effort than previous Presidents to arrest the severe economic downturn, including some public works projects. And then (Gray, 1993), as now (Pidd, 2016), civil society stepped up to provide aid and relief. Yet when the election came, Franklin D Roosevelt won, and with his New Deal coalition led the United States for four terms, with a comprehensive and interventionist plan to support and rebuild.

While Osborne avoided the stigma of the crisis hitting on his watch, he has also avoided intervention. Instead he has cut public spending - saying that the roof must be fixed "while the sun is shining". Amidst years of economic turmoil and cuts to social security, while statistics say homelessness has continued to rise (Gentleman, 2016), its difficult to see an application for his maxim.

The cracks and those slipping through

The advent of these modern day Hooverville encampments suggest that there is an unacceptable break down in the welfare safety nets in Britain, in France and elsewhere in Europe. Not all of this can be put down to the pressures of the refugee crisis. There are cracks appearing and people are slipping through.

Throwing money at suppressing the symptoms is not enough. It won't tackle the core problems. As much as the Conservatives want the focus to be on the public debt, in order to justify their agenda, private debt is just as large of a problem. Individuals are hanging on by their fingernails, stretched thin by the high cost of living.

Housing is prohibitively expensive. The cost of energy needs to come down. Work for the lowest paid is too insecure and the safety net too full of holes. George Osborne doesn't have to become a believer in a big  interventionist state overnight to help. At the very least something might be done with small reforms, aimed at properly regulating the energy and housing industry to prevent anti-competitive behaviour and price gouging.

Above all that, Osborne might benefit from accepting a single simple lesson, one that most austerians should take note of: the bad times inevitably end up costing far more than the good.

Budget 2016: Osborne's Sugar Levy will get the headlines, but he's presiding over a weak economy and a fractured society

Osborne's budget will grab headlines, but there is more moving beneath the surface. Photograph: Pound coins from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

If there is anything you can take away from the UK government's 2016 budget statement, it's that the Chancellor George Osborne knows how to tick boxes. There was support for small businesses, a levy on sugary products and government help for savers (BBC, 2016).

The Chancellor gave these policies, gathered together, a budget for the next generation. Yet as ever, the headlines are only what Tim Farron called the 'political theatre' (ITV, 2016). There is much more to be found in the details - not least a revealing look at the Chancellor's approach to government.

Osborne admitted that economic growth forecasts suggest the economy is growing more weakly, and that the government has missed its own debt and deficit targets (BBC, 2016). Yet room was still found for cuts to corporation, raising the highest tax band and making cuts to capital gains tax.

Jeremy Corbyn's response was hostile. From the off he called the Chancellor's budget a legacy of failure, that was poor on equality (BBC, 2016{2}). The Labour leader argued that the breaks for the wealthy were being paid for by those who could least afford it.

Corbyn said that tax breaks for the wealthy were disgusting when they were accompanied by cuts to disability support. The poor attitude towards equality was epitomised in the continued existence of the tax on 'women's products', as in essentials like tampons and sanitary towels, and the patronising plan of distributing the proceeds to 'women's' charities.

As for the next generation, there was little in the budget to offer a tremendous amount of hope. Under-25s won't benefit from minimum wage rises - or increasingly from any kind of social security at all (BBC, 2013) - and savings help for under-40s won't do much to help deal with rising housing rents, let alone house prices.

There was also little information on how the Chancellor intended to find the funds to cut the deficit. Beyond the previously announced changes on tax credits and ESA, there were no other major spending cuts were outlined, beyond a vague commitment to finding around £4bn in government 'efficiencies' - and apparently raising an, astonishing, £12bn from closing tax loopholes.

From a progressive perspective, one thing that the budget did reveal was Osborne's attitude to government. The Conservatives have felt comfortable pitching themselves as supporters of limited government, the private sector and even pitching themselves as rendering the Liberal Democrats obsolete.

But the Chancellor's decisions reveal something different, highlighted in the way that he framed tax cuts for small business. In his statement, Osborne said they were made possible by higher revenue coming in from big business.

But what Osborne could not resist was to also take higher receipts as a signal to cut taxes. What this highlights, and the Chancellor himself alluded to, is the Conservative view of taxation as an incentive or disincentive. A mechanism to be used to manipulate social behaviour toward the governing party's interpretation of the 'national interest'.

What hasn't been asked by those handing out successive tax cuts is whether tax in itself has a role to play as a civic contribution, that goes towards the serving of the public good. Whether there is a contribution that ought to be made, back into the community, for the extraction of wealth in your own interest.

As Osborne cuts back government spending and the public sector he reveals something else. A vision of a small state, one that does little itself but interferes a lot: meddling and social engineering through the tax system, trying to shape society through supply and denial of small but crucial funds to devolved institutions largely bereft of funding.

The sum so far of Osborne's approach is an increasingly divided and unequal society. Taxes have come down but the economy remains weak. Burdens continue to pour onto the more vulnerable. Osborne will get the headlines, but they are only a mask that disguises a weak economy and a fractured society.

Budget 2016 Preview: Will the Chancellor again produce an ace in the hole that lets him to put off unpopular cuts?

George Osborne's Autumn Budget Statement promised the UK a bright future. Osborne took the chance offered by predictions of an economy looking more healthy to be a little less conservative with the national finances and drop controversial cuts to the police budget and to tax credits (ITV, 2015).

This time around Osborne is warning of dark clouds and the need to prepare for the worst (BBC, 2016). The Chancellor has been at pains to stress that there will be cuts in order to meet his fiscal targets. There might be some sugar coatings, but the medicine is still predicted to be sour.

However, the Chancellor will surely be hoping to be able, once again, to defy all expectations and match his Autumn reprieves. Yet those reprieves were themselves only temporary. They could only be delays of self-imposed hard choices that Osborne had undertaken to make.

Theresa May stressed that the police would still be expected to find efficiency savings (Travis, 2015) and the dropping of Tax Credit cuts were a diversion, as they were still set to come in later with the Universal Credit (Kuenssberg, 2015). They were also a gamble.

Osborne's Autumn Statement took positive forecasts as an opportunity to not make the unpopular choices, while still working on closing the deficit - betting on the forecasts panning out and with slight tax increases, around the fringes. Attempts were also made to temporarily ease the way for the middle class with the Conservatives' colourfully branded array of saving and house buying assistance - that buys time for much delayed house building (Wright, 2016) by siphoning homes from housing associations, depended on by the least well off, to increase competition in the private markets.

Wednesday's budget might reasonably be expected, by the opposition, to be the overdue reality check for those who voted Conservative last May, with the implementation of all of the delayed austerity measures. All of Osborne's public comments certainly seem to be preparing the ground for the further cuts - 50p in every £100 of government spending as he put it to Andrew Marr on Sunday (BBC, 2016).

Yet its hard to ever be too sure what the Chancellor is planning. Osborne managed expectations in the Autumn towards his plans for cuts to tax credits (Kuenssberg et al, 2015). Yet when the time came, he still found a way to avoid what would have proven a deeply unpopular cut.

This time around, with so much riding on the EU referendum including his own chances of succeeding Cameron as Conservative leader, Osborne is again unlikely to go antagonising voters if it can be avoided. Yet time is undeniably running out to meet his own deadline for eliminating the deficit (Verity, 2016), and small shifts in forecasts could lead to the need for drastically larger cuts to meet those goals.

Hints being dropped about new policies, to be announced on Wednesday, at the least suggest a wish to dampen the impact of announcing cuts. Yet the proposed new savings top-up scheme for the least well off seems to be little but a thin veneer (Mason, 2016) - as it's only likely to help a sixth of those who are supposed to be eligible, with Labour criticising the policy for its unrealistic appraisal of what people can actually afford to save.

Across the floor, Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has said he wants to see more investment (BBC, 2016{2}) - putting money into building up domestic industry as a way to rebalance the economy. McDonnell's advisors, like Mazzucato and Stiglitz, have certainly been making the argument that the state has a role to play in rebuilding the economy.

It is certainly hard to see a way forward without a lot of investment from somewhere. Osborne's own hope has been for investment in Britain to come from 'emerging markets', like India and particularly China (The Economist, 2015). For these private and foreign state investments to take the slack and pump money into sectors of the UK economy and infrastructure, according to market needs, so that the Chancellor can cut government spending.

Considering that, while defending the European Union, Osborne argued it was the UK, not the EU, that was responsible for the 'red tape' that puts off investment (Bloom, 2016) - and the Chancellor's desire to stimulate these private and foreign state investments - it might not be a long shot to suggest some sort of deregulation will be included in the budget. It would certainly offer some 'efficiency' cuts in terms of reduced bureaucracy.

If George Osborne has an ace up his sleeve, he has yet to let slip what it will be. The implementation of the National Living Wage (a higher minimum wage for over 25s), very limited savings assistance and the regular increase in the Personal Income Tax Allowance (introduced by the Liberal Democrats), do not amount to much of an offset to the expected large departmental cuts.

Will the Chancellor play some hidden card, or will the full weight of his targets finally begin to fall? He doesn't have much room for manoeuvre. His fiscal deadline is approaching, neither deficit nor debt are under control and his own outlook sees global economic struggles. And yet, after so many other sleights of hand, it would be foolish to rule out the possibility of one more gamble.

Policing and Crime Bill, with oversight and transparency reforms, goes to Commons unlikely to face much opposition

Theresa May's Policing and Crime Bill has a stated aim of improving disciplinary and complaints systems, along with the Inspectorate, in order to improve public confidence in the Police.  Photograph: Police Motorbike from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

In Parliament today, Home Secretary Theresa May presents her Policing and Crime Bill to the Commons for its first formal vote (Parliament, 2016). With a Conservative majority, its passage at this stage should be just a formality - particularly when English Votes for English Laws is applied. That only makes it all the more important for those outside of Parliament to pay particularly close attention.

The government claim the bill will 'finish the job' of police reform (Home Office & May, 2016). Included in its aims are reforming the police disciplinary and complaints systems, strengthening 'the independence of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary', increasing protections for people with mental health problems, allowing chief officers to "confer a wider range of powers on police staff and volunteers", and introducing a requirement for 'suspected foreign nationals to produce a nationality document'.

While moves to increase oversight and accountability are always welcome, along with further considerations for mental health, elements of the bill have faced some criticism. For instance, the expansion of volunteers in police service with police powers has raised some concerns (BBC, 2016) - with suggestions that it may be an artificial way to inflate police numbers in the face of austerity and cuts. There is also some scepticism regarding the continually expanding role of the Police and Crime Commissioners (Russell Webster, 2016), though it has been argued that accountability brought by PCC's election are having a positive impact (Baird, 2016).

The Policing and Crime bill itself is being steered through Parliament by Theresa May. As Home Secretary, Theresa May has already overseen a number of disputes over law enforcement and policing policy.

May has been the force behind the slow and controversial progress of the Investigatory Powers Bill, the so-called snooper's charter (Watt, 2016). Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister, had forced early bills covering public surveillance, particularly on the internet, to be withdrawn. The most recent attempt has been criticised, not just for being an infringement of liberty, but for being largely unworkable (The Guardian; 2016).

By way of contrast, a positive move was made by May in response to Boris Johnson's wish to deploy water cannon in London. May promised never to deploy police with military style equipment, for fear of undermining the legitimacy of the police (Dodd, 2015) - which is supposed to be based on the principle of policing by consent.

Between refusing water cannons and promoting mass data gathering, and her lack of surety on elected Police and Crime Commissioners (BBC, 2016{2}), Theresa May has cut an inconsistent path as Home Secretary. That inconsistency, along with the Conservative government's poor attitude towards human rights, since cutting loose the Liberal Democrats in May 2015 (Bowcott, 2015), call for a particularly critical eye to be turned on any reform efforts they spearhead.

It is only the early stages for this bill. A bill whose aims will likely be disrupted by disputes over further 'efficiencies' to be found in police budgets (ITV, 2016) - and maybe still further cuts as those scarcely avoided by the Chancellor last time, through heavy dependence upon the prediction of an improved economy, may well come around again in next week's budget with the economy struggling and tough choices expected (Elliott, 2016).

Yet whenever one party seeks to make changes to the enforcement of law and order, it is important to stress the need for the public to remain vigilant. Reform is need. Oversight and transparency are needed. Clear statements of powers, who has them and when, are needed. But the process of reform should too be constrained by those principles.

Return of Charles Kennedy's proposal of a penny on tax for education signals worries that more needs to be done on inequality

The late Charles Kennedy, whose practical policies have returned to the table for consideration in Scotland. Photograph: Charles Kennedy speaking at the Friday Rally at the Scottish Liberal Democrats Spring Conference, 2015 from James Gourley/Liberal Democrats (License) (Cropped)

One of the more worrying statistics of the moment is that generational inequality is rising, as the doors that allow social mobility are closing (Inman, 2016). One particularly telling factor is that home ownership has become a distant and fading dream for young people, as modest incomes are no longer enough to get started (Elliott & Osborne, 2016).

So far, George Osborne's efforts have been aimed at finding ways around tackling the key problems: making larger and cheaper loans available, turning rents into deposits and selling off social housing cheaply to tenants. All of these moves are attempts to stimulate the private sector and take care of the middle class - largely at the expense of those worse off. What they don't do is fix the core problems, like a lack of supply that drives rents and prices through the roof.

But Osborne's austere laissez faire isn't going to close the inequality gap. For schools, for example, the place where inequalities first begin to take their substantial toll - whose teachers and administrators are buried under mounting stress that is driving employees away (Harris, 2016) - a place to start would seem to be a simple, practical acceptance: more money is needed. Yet with austerity ascendant, that will be a difficult thing for this government to accept.

Under the present conditions, its really no surprise that the late Charles Kennedy's penny on tax policy has seen a resurgence. Kennedy proposed, as Ashdown did before him, to add one penny in the pound to income tax - an increase of 1% in search of £3bn in additional funds - to support extra spending on education (BBC, 2001; Marr, 2001; Taylor, 2016).

The same policy has now turned up in Scotland. Will Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, announced the return of this policy to the Lib Dem's platform at the end of January (Carrell, 2016) - only to be upstaged a week later by the Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale's adoption of the same policy (ITV, 2016).

Under Kennedy, this was seen as a bold, but practical measure at a time when the economy was improving dramatically. Under Kennedy's successor Nick Clegg, the emerging financial crisis led to these ideas being translated into 'fairness'. Clegg's, now much missed, red lines in government involved sharing the burden  (Parkinson, 2012) - refusing to have cuts impact on the poorest without the equivalent be expected of the richest.

Amongst the things Clegg fought for was increased spending for the early years at school (Ahmed, 2015), hoping to close gaps so that children might grow up with the skills necessary to seize opportunities on their own merits. During that time, Conservative supremacy and lust for cuts was barely restrained by the Coalition. Now it doesn't seem to be restrained at all.

All in it together, to protect the next generation from crippling public debt, seems to have become the means to disenfranchise the next generation - denying young people public services and affordable housing. Meanwhile, the wealthy are doing just fine (Inman, 2016).

And yet, austerity has laid bare and made finally visible in the UK the true extent of the financial crisis - from which the UK was largely sheltered by the government funded public sector. From homelessness at the extreme, to the now common shortages of affordable homes, the public may now finally - thanks to austerity - be realising the full weight of the burden falling on them.

In those conditions, the re-emergence of policy's like Kennedy's penny on tax is not surprising. A general outcry for more the government to do more cannot be far away. While that, of course, doesn't necessarily always have to mean constant high levels of public spending on fully nationalised services. But more has to be done.

Mariana Mazzucato, economist and one Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's anti-austerity economic advisors, has argued that the private sector is a weak innovator that is loathe to take risks. Quoting Keynes, she argues that most innovation - the opening of new economic spaces - is done best by government (Mazzucato, 2013) - in the form of a smarter state.

Inequality has many facets that need to be tackled. Education needs more support. Housing needs to be more widely available and cheaper. Young people need to see more opportunities in more fields. None of these things can be achieved without some additional government funding at some stage. Public bodies have the ability, and the right, to act: to open up new economies, to create new opportunities where there are now none, and to invest in new futures.

 

Breakthroughs in all of these areas would lead to new economic growth and wider spread shares of the spoils. A penny on tax for education is a modest, practical start. A small, subtle, rejection of the austerity doctrine. But it is one small solution, for just one part of a huge and interlinked problem of inequality that the government cannot for much longer simply trim around the edges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the aftermath of the Syria Vote and the Oldham By-election, New Labour has scored itself some marginal points in its struggle with Corbyn - yet Labour remains divided

Hilary Benn's speech in support of expanding military action into Syria has left the rifts between the Left and Right of the Labour Party as deep as ever. Photograph: Hilary Benn by Jodie C (License) (Cropped)

After a number of important events in the week leading up, from the Chancellor's Autumn Statement to the vote on intervention in Syria, it would not have been outrageous to expect some sort of fallout in the Oldham West and Royton by-election.

In the end, however, it was ultimately uneventful. The incumbent Labour Party won, even increasing its percentage of the vote (Pidd, 2015). There was no drama in the end for Labour, no dramatic surge of support away from the party by voters fleeing its Left-wing leader (Harris et al, 2015; Warren, 2015).

Yet the past week's events, Oldham included, have shifted the political field ever so slightly. In the aftermath of the Syria vote and the Oldham by-election, it is the Right-leaning Labour faction who find themselves the marginal beneficiaries in their struggle with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

George Osborne's spending review, courtesy of the Office of Budget Responsibility's generosity in predicting a stronger economy, was as much a political play as economic. By performing a U-turn and not cutting tax credits, for now at least, and not cutting police budgets, Osborne was able to make his policies appear much more moderate (Kirkup, 2015).

From a Labour Right perspective, this was a master stroke by the Chancellor. In their view, Osborne will have countered and undermined criticisms levelled by Corbyn's shadow cabinet by removing its main threads and moved the Conservatives to occupy a centre ground they believed was being abandoned by their own leadership. With the Right of Labour feeling that the middle ground was slipping away from them, the Syria debate came at a politically crucial moment.

The vote on intervention in Syria saw a rebellion of 66 Labour MPs against the position of the party leadership (Sparrow & Perraudin, 2015), after - under a barrage of Conservative heckling - Corbyn had stumbled through his speech (Wallace, 2015). It also saw allegations from Labour MPs of abuse by angry constituents - the responsibility for which they were quick to pin to Corbyn (Dathan, 2015).

The biggest moment of the debate was clearly Hilary Benn's speech, which - while much applauded by Conservatives - in truth had little substance. There were no compelling facts, of which the debate as a whole suffered a disgraceful shortage, only emotional appeals. Described as a piece of political theatre (Shabi, 2015), it served both to stake out a distinct position for the Labour Right and to undermine Corbyn.

After so contentious a week, in was not unreasonable to think that sparks might fly at the Oldham by-election. Yet the result was a comfortable, status quo recovering, victory for Labour. Yet the Labour Right was again able to salvage something for themselves.

In Oldham, some on the Labour Right claimed the victory as a win in despite of Corbyn, amongst a population that had little warmth for pacifist republicanism (Pidd, 2015; Warren, 2015). The late Michael Meacher, a strong supporter of Corbyn and the Labour Left, was even replaced by a new MP, Jim McMahon, who is no follower of Corbyn.

This week has been a stern test for Labour. As a whole it has largely scraped through. However, while there were no decisive moments, the Labour Right will feel it has scored some marginal points in its struggle against Corbyn and his new direction. Yet for progressives more broadly, it was just another week of squabbling and division across the Left.

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.