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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Half Term Report: Must do better

The Commons continue to play a bigger role, but mostly because the government remains disengaged from domestic matters. At the February half term break, Ministers will return to their constituencies with report cards that read: must do better.

Is a government technically doing a bad job if it isn't doing anything at all? This is a pertinent question as Parliament heads into the February half term recess. That's because it's hard to report on how on the government is handling it's main job - that is, managing the legislative programme - when it doesn't seem to have one.

Back in January our preview of 2018 pointed out that last year, little of the government's legislative programme made any progress. Some was dropped, some was delayed, some disappeared into consultation never to be seen again.

So far, 2018 hasn't been much better. Theresa May's recent, and criticised, announcement of a new electoral offence of Intimidation received much fanfare - but turned out to only be a pledge to consult on the recommendations of a committee report.

A promised update to domestic violence legislation, touted last year in the Queen's Speech, has still yet to appear - despite a similar bill passing the Scottish Parliament in less than a year with bipartisan support.

What about the policies already passed? Those being overseen by ministers either already in place or being implementation? In short, the core elements of the Conservative agenda are besieged as major Tory policies are failing on all sides.

The government's restrictions on Personal Independence Payments for those with mental health conditions have been successfully challenged in court and now all claims are now under review with bigger payouts expected.

The rollout of Universal Credit has been a rolling disaster, stumbling from one mess into the next. At the end of last year the government was forced to concede ground and make some changes. Now, a committee report has questioned it's overall feasibility.

Whether the government's devolution agenda is working might be a matter of perspective. Last week a Conservative county council, Northamptonshire, effectively declared bankruptcy. Even earmarked reserves are being eaten away and council taxes are set to rise across the country.

The strain of funding poor needy neighbourhoods is shifting away from redistribution at a national level, and towards communities trying to support themselves. That might seem like a win for Conservatives uncomfortable with redistribution and what they term 'dependence'.

But it is grinding down communities that need resources for essential frontline services - and councils will know exactly were to point fingers when angry locals come knocking. It also plays right into the hands of Corbyn's pitch for a renewal of municipal socialism.

And that isn't helped by the collapse of outsourcing giant Carillion, the trouble facing other outsourcing firms like Capita, or the fact the government had to take the East Coast Mainline rail franchise away from Stagecoach, who had got their numbers wrong and were losing large amounts of money. These are all simply embarrassments for the government.

While the government seems to have largely abandoned legislating while it pours it's focus into Brexit, backbenchers and the opposition are doing their best to keep things moving forward.

In a remarkably constructive day for the Commons, two private member's bills made it through the second reading gauntlet on 19th January. There was the Fitness for Human Habitation Bill, sponsored by Labour's Karen Buck, and the Stalking Protection Bill, sponsored by Conservative Sarah Wollaston.

Layla Moran of the Liberal Democrats also made use of the final Prime Minister's Questions before the break, to promote a campaign to abolish an old law Still used to criminalise homelessness. It's a push with a good chance to gain traction, thanks to some recent controversy - such as in Bournemouth.

The opposition, as a whole, has also been very effective at forcing issues onto the agenda, with motions on matters like rail franchises and the NHS winter crisis passing. This has continued on from last year when the government stopped taking part in opposition motions - a decision for which they faced criticism even from the Speaker.

While it is good to see the Commons having an impact in political life - plurality should be at the heart of how we make the law - backbenchers picking up the slack, while the government is too busy, is not why we should be seeing it.

Is the government taking it's time? Is it seeking means other than legislation to achieve it's aims? The lack of transparency from the May Ministry makes it difficult to tell the difference between inertia and working around the limitations of a minority government.

However, one of the main arguments for having a standing government is leadership - and being seen is a necessary part of that. It is one thing for the government to give the Commons a spotlight, to let it take the lead on legislation. It is another to let it through absence and abstention.

In January, we argued that there were big issues that needed tackling. That hasn't changed. Neither has the government's lack of engagement with domestic matters. The government remains more talk than action.

When government ministers return to their constituencies for the February half term break this week, they'll do so with report cards that read: must do better.

Government, Parliament and the Centralisation of Power: If stability is what you want, you must resist the Government's attempts to strip power from Parliament

Parliament is back in session this week and the neverending turmoil inside the Conservative Party continues. In doing so, it exposes one of the primary weaknesses of a presidential system - and one of the reasons why the UK doesn't have one.

Or rather, why the UK doesn't have a presidential system in theory, at least. During the Tory conference, Theresa May's disastrous speech contained an apology for running too presidential an election campaign. But the grounds for such a campaign have been long in the preparing and only exposes the dramatic shift towards the centralising of decision-making at westminster.

This is a trend stretching back decades and is one of those trends for which New Labour were particularly criticised for not reversing. Even while some powers have been devolved, the Cabinet has continued to accumulate power at the expense of Parliament.

Theresa May's Government has threatened the most drastic veer into excluding Parliament in recent times, with parts of the Brexit Bill. The bill sparked controversy for potentially allowing the Government, embodied in the Cabinet, to make major changes to the law - even to the constitution - without first submitting them to Parliament for scrutiny and vote.

There defense amounted to 'we'll be responsible with that power', but that isn't enough. This is just the latest step in a long term trend. Parliament has been getting weaker for decades and with it has come a, perhaps unintended, consequence: instability.

In the strictest terms, the constitutional and governmental powers of the United Kingdom are vested in Parliament. It is the supreme authority in state. Collectively, the power of the state is embodied by - primarily - the Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

Theresa May promised a state that was strong and stable centred on her personal rule. So did David Cameron. And neither on them has been able to deliver. In the late twentieth century and the early part of the new millenium, there were brief periods when the winds were just right, or the two party system rigid and exclusive enough, that singular leaders could stick around for a while.

But betting on stability rooted in the personal longevity of a single person would get you long odds and for good reason. Power embodied in a single person or a single party is inherently unstable, because their power base is fundamentally just a fraction of the people of a country.

That the power of state is, in theory, vested in Parliament is above all a reflection of the futility minority rule. Theresa May can never offer stability if power is not rooted in inclusive, democratic assemblies.

As her speech showed, power hangs on a thread. A persistent cough can weaken the power of one person. And if that person must embody the state and all it's people and power, you start down a dark road that leads nowhere good.

When the Brexit Bill returns, MPs - especially Tories - must be brave enough to resist to flagrant concentration of power. If for nothing else, to put an end to a trend that has guaranteed a near permanent condition of instability that affects everyone.

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.

May's Brexit: An unnecessary conflict between Executive and Parliamentary authority in Britain

At every turn, Theresa May has antagonised Parliament and picked fights unnecessary fights.

Today Theresa May has her authority in the Commons put to the test. So far as Prime Minister she has drawn some very stark lines, creating some poorly considered battles and today's vote seems amongst the least necessary.

The PM made her Brexit Bill intentions pretty clear. She wanted a simple bill, passed quickly. No flourishes, just a straight forward rubber stamping from Parliament to authorise her to trigger the UK's biggest constitutional change in lifetimes.

Considering how May ignored and excluded Parliament rather than engaging from the beginning, the rubber stamp should never have seemed likely to come easily. In fact her determination to keep this to executive authority alone has been almost obsessive.

From the beginning, May has tried to portray the referendum as giving her a personal mandate to wield reserve powers - despite the referendum never being a legally binding vote, whether or not you accept its result as a guide for future policy. That is particularly astounding When you consider that May is trying to change the constitution by executive power alone.

When this position, of cutting Parliament out of the process, was challenged, May's Government went to court - ostensibly to legally exclude Parliament. When the judges faced harassment and media attacks, the response from May's Cabinet - which should have been standing up for judicial independence - was at first absent and then poor.

Then, the Lords sought, in the form of amendments to the court-ordered Brexit Bill, to guarantee the UK's commitment to protecting EU citizens currently resident in the UK and to ensure that the Commons plays a definite role in ratifying any Brexit deal. The PM's response was almost ludicrous.

First she took to the press to virtually order the Lords to comply with her narrow aims on the bill. May then took the unusual and aggressive step of making herself personally present in the Lords to watch over the debate.

To do so, she sat on the steps of throne, a privilege afforded to her as a member of the Privy Council - the Queen's council of advisors. That knowledge expresses a lot about the nature of the dispute over how Brexit is proceeding: the Prime Minister turning to executive authority and reserve powers and privileges to bully and exclude Parliament.

The most obvious question is: why? Why bother? In her quest to treat the referendum as a personal mandate, May seems determined to undermine every other branch of government. She is picking fights in every direction.

Look at her initial approach to negotiating with the EU. She ignored the EU's position - that negotiations would only start when Article 50 was officially triggered and that the EU member states would negotiate collectively - and set off to try and negotiate with each member directly.

Theresa May seems determined to antagonise everyone and everything around her, drawing lines and making fights out of what should be collaborations. And that speaks volumes about the way the Conservatives are governing Britain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome Back Westminster: Big decisions ahead for Members of Parliament

After a summer recess intended as a break from politics as usual - but which in reality turned into a carnival of political attractions - Westminster is back in session and there are some big decisions ahead.

Top of the list for progressives is human rights. With the first PMQs of the new term in sight, the Justice Secretary took it upon herself to confirm Conservative intentions towards the Human Rights Act and the UK's relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Liz Truss, newly appointed Justice Secretary announced during the break that Conservative manifesto plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights will go ahead (Stone, 2016). The plan has been widely criticised and spent a lot of time buried in the face of parliamentary opposition (Sankey, 2016) - including within Conservative ranks.

That decision goes nearly hand in hand with the decision ahead of Theresa May regarding Article 50 - which triggers the beginning of the UK's exit from the European Union. So divided are the Tories that the PM arranged a special gathering at Chequers, the PM's country retreat, to hash out a common strategy (BBC, 2016).

The product, that has been seen so far, is a refusal from Theresa May to commit to any of the Brexit campaign's promises: in particular the promises of points-based immigration and £100m a week in extra funding for the NHS (Mason, 2016). Even continuing to contribute to the EU's budget was not ruled out.

Beyond the headline issues, even just in the first week back MPs must get to grips with questions on refugee children, debate the government's budget which is at its third reading in the Commons, while the Lords tackle the Investigatory Powers Bill - the latest iteration of the so called Snooper's Charter.

Meanwhile Labour's leadership election has been seemingly fruitless and has made the attempt to oust Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership look a shambles. Owen Smith's challenge hasn't really materialised in the debates and he has been unable to set himself apart.

That is not, though, necessarily to say that there is substantial ground between the two candidates. Corbyn clearly has faults and never really set himself apart either - even in front of audiences where he enjoyed a clear majority of members' support. Yet for Smith to replace Corbyn, he has to demonstrate himself to be clearly better suited and he has so far failed.

And if, as his polling numbers of around 60% or higher suggest, Corbyn is re-elected leader in three weeks time, the divisions in the party are unlikely to have been resolved - MPs opposed to Corbyn, having failed to oust him, have more schemes planned to undermine him (Whale, 2016).

In all, the Summer seems to have been an embarrassing failure for the Labour Parliamentary Party and its disaffected MPs, and their disappointment looks likely to spill over long into the next Westminster session.

After a summer where Labour have appeared chronically unable to get their house in order, while the Tories got theirs settled almost too quickly, and with only one utterly fringe MP having a 'Brexit' mandate from voters, in a house that by overwhelming majority supported remain, UK politics is back but its actors look unready to deal with the important matters ahead.

Surely against this backdrop, a new election has to be a very real consideration. For the Left, in as difficult a position as it seems, a Progressive Alliance seems to be the only way to take the fight to the Conservatives, who look right now able to win in virtually the same manner as Theresa May became Tory leader and Prime Minister - uncontested.

Caroline Lucas, in her return to the Green Party leadership in a job share, certainly put her best foot forward in making the forming of a Progressive Alliance her number one priority (BBC, 2016{2}). While for the Greens any strategy to increase their own representation is certainly in their interest, an alliance would also help to increase the representation of diverse voices in Parliament and rally the Left opposition to mount a serious challenge to the Conservative position.

However, plans for an Left alliance are already looking to near to scuppered by Labour's inability to get beyond its need to be the single and uncontested party of progressives. The party's official stance remains firmly opposed to pluralism, with even Jeremy Corbyn ruling out a Progressive Alliance by rolling out the party's usual lines about its historic role.

Its belief in the two-party, adversarial, system, and its own special role in that system, is summed up in the slogan on its Pride banners: "Only Labour can deliver equality".

That attitude doesn't bode well for a project aiming to build a Progressive Alliance. While there has been some warming up to pluralism and proportional representation by some individual MPs or members, the Labour Party's official stance remains intransigent.

There are big decisions ahead and progressives can only really face them working together. That means respecting the desire for broader representation, finding common ground, and working across partisan boundaries - rather than trying to wrangle everyone under one programme announced with one voice.

The Left cannot be frightened of debate between plural voices. The Left is diverse and its diversity is its strength. The way ahead for the opposition in Parliament, and the wider progressive movement, is to embrace plurality and co-operation, in the name of the common good.

Trident divides the parties and even the countries of the UK. Will today's vote do anything to settle the matter?

Poseidon, trident in hand, looks down on Glasgow from atop the Clydeport Building. Just twenty five miles away is the base for the UK's Trident nuclear submarine programme. Photograph: Clydeport Building by Skin-UBX (License) (Cropped)

In virtually his last public act as Prime Minister, David Cameron set today for a Commons debate on whether the government should renew the Trident nuclear submarine programme (BBC, 2016). For the Conservatives, now under Theresa May's leadership, this should be the ideal issue - the Tories are united in their position and Labour are fragmented (Smith, 2016).

Trident certainly underlines the fundamental problem facing Labour at the moment. Between the different wings of the party, there is little common ground. Today, Labour will approach that divide by giving its MPs a free vote, considering nuclear weapons a matter of conscience.

Yet what that also means is that while the Conservatives can rebuild unity after the EU referendum on issues such as this and the SNP is unanimous and clear in its opposition to the programme (BBC, 2016{2}), Labour will stumble through another issue without a clear consensus on a position.

There have been efforts at proposing a common approach. One proposal from Paul Mason, journalist and part of the pro-Corbyn camp, is to accept renewal as the strategic element of a shift away from disastrous expeditionary warfare (Mason, 2016). Mason argues that with the Nuclear deterrent, held with a clear posture, 'keeping the peace' strategically and conventional forces redeployed to the NATO mission to safeguard Eastern Europe against an erratic Russia, the party can bury the issue, ending that particular cause for internal strife, and focus on the issues that people really care about - like the NHS.

Yet, especially at a time of open internal warfare for Labour - aimed without reservation or equivocation at Jeremy Corbyn - it is unlikely that Corbyn would be willing to compromise on an issue such as this, so fundamental to his own political identity that saw him resoundingly elected just nine months ago.

Beyond the issues it exposes for the Labour Party, Trident raises other important questions.

In the aftermath of the EU referendum, Scotland was shown to be distinct from England in its attitude towards the European Union. While the Conservatives see safety in the unity of their party on the Trident issue, it is a safety on that ground alone. On her accession to Prime Minister, Theresa May stated that her highest priority is the Union (Hill, 2016), yet there are few issues that could help further provoke the break up of the United Kingdom than Trident.

Currently in its third consecutive term of government at Holyrood and holding almost all Westminster seats for Scotland, the SNP completely opposes nuclear weapons and is particularly offended that they are based in Scotland (BBC, 2016{3}). Though no serious effort has been made to actually move the base for Trident, options for prospective alternatives include moving the programme to Wales (Chakelian, 2015).

Thanks to England voting to leave the EU and the Tories inflaming that divide with Trident, the question of Scottish Independence is firmly back on the agenda. While the Tories might heal their own rifts, they do so only by opening other wounds further.

Then there is the question of fiscal priorities. A renewal for Trident is a £31bn investment (Morris, 2015), at least, at a time of long term austerity - which has seen devastating cuts to public services and desperately needed public investment - and the economy taking a clear hit from Brexit.

Theresa May has already seemingly rolled back on George Osborne's commitment to a government budget surplus and Labour's current and prospective leaderships are both pledging vast amounts of economy-kickstarting public investment (Pope, 2016; Edwards, 2016).

In that environment, any spending decision has to be weighed carefully. And amongst the matters to be considered is the fact that there are something like 15,000 jobs depend upon the maintenance of the nuclear defence industry, a matter no politician is going to put lightly aside.

Which brings us last, but absolutely not least, to the question of a nuclear deterrent itself. To make a spending decision about a weapon system requires knowing if it even has a purpose.

So does it have a role to play? On one level, a nuclear deterrent is a huge investment in a weapon that is, hopefully, by intention and design never to be used. Analysts have argued that deterrence still has a strategic role to play - with concern over the renewed aggression of Russia cited in most arguments (BBC, 2016{4}; Mason, 2016).

The fact that no sane leaders of a progressive movement could, in good conscience, commit the appalling war crime of condemning tens, evens hundreds, of thousands to a nuclear death, not even in retaliation, seems to be treated as beside the point. For his honesty on the matter, Corbyn was condemned. But ignoring the facts as inexpedient serves no one.

Whatever tactical political advantage today's vote offers the Conservatives, through a show of internal unity and exposing their opponent's divisions, it isn't going to settle this issue. It will only drive Scotland further away, wedging yet another point difference between Scotland and England, and prolong an argument that can, ultimately, only end in one way: nuclear disarmament.

The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum: 4 things you should know about TTIP, free trade and the European Union

One of the most controversial elements of the UK's membership of the European Union, at present, is the TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - trade deal. Between the United States and the European Union, it is intended to break down trade barriers limiting free trade.

The prospective deal has been controversial from the start - being assembled in negotiations deemed secret, under a cloud of fear that business is being given legal rights to seek recompense from governments for profit-hurting policy, reduce Europe's regulatory standards and open protected domestic institutions to aggressive corporate competition.

I: The EU is only what you make of it

The misconception here is that the EU is a distinct, abstract institution, pursuing its own agenda - thus imagining the deal to be the work of the EU alone, with exit a simple blocking measure. But the EU doesn't work like that. It is driven by a council of the governments of the member states, including the UK.

Right now, Britain's representative are David Cameron's government and the Prime Minister has argued forcefully in favour of TTIP. Leaving the EU is not going to stop the UK's Conservative government seeking the pass TTIP-type trade agreement.

The basic reality is that the opposition to TTIP is to be found in Europe, not out of it. In Germany, 250,000 people have marched against the treaty. In France, the government is opposing the treaty for the way it threatens its protection policy covering certain of its own domestic interests. The movements are right in step with the major concerns over the treaty in Britain.

II: Remember ACTA?

As ever, the problem persists of national governments hiding behind the EU - using it as an excuse or a way to pass policies where the public aren't watching, when it is simply a system whose strings they are pulling.

Consider the controversial ACTA treaty. ACTA, which was intended to ensure an international 'harmonisation' of copyright enforcement, was criticised as potentially allowing private companies to violate basic personal liberties like privacy and even threatening generic medicines to protect the financial interests big pharmaceutical companies.

While many national governments around the world and across Europe signed, including the UK, the treaty was ultimately blocked in a vote by the directly and proportionally elected EU Parliament, following massive public protests across the EU.

III: What is the point of free trade?

On TTIP, Prime Minister Cameron has tried to make out that there are stark lines over the deal. From his perspective, on his side - supporting TTIP - are all those who want free trade and the benefits it brings, and on the other are people who are 'against free trade and wanting to see an expansion of trade and investment and jobs' (Mason, 2016).

It is not unfair to suggest free trade is a worthy principle, but why can't we have it on ethical terms?

In its more idealistic form, the EU is all about constructing an ethical free trade area. In its origins, it was conceived of as a way to end war in Europe by stopping national governments getting into strife with each other over control of the natural resources with which to construct to materiel of war.

Going further back, into the 19th century, the campaign for free trade was about breaking open cartels. Under the system of trade formed by the competing systems of national protection, the basic necessities were made prohibitively expensive by the stranglehold over them of powerful and unaccountable landlords and bosses whose interests where served by national government protection.

The Anti-Corn Law League, the early radical liberal campaign in the UK for free trade, sought to break up these cartels to reduce the cost of basic food and goods, so that the poorest could afford a decent and healthy life. The campaign for free trade was in service to the public against the protected interests of the rich landowners.

IV: What does EU trade look like?

What the EU has attempted, but not completed, is to ensure that the free trade it promotes takes place on a fair and ethical playing field. Basic standards, enforced by regulation (the mythical beast the Right love to talk of slaying), protect workers' rights, prevent animal testing and in a host of other important areas ensure a basic minimum expected of business practice in Europe.

Internally, this comes hand-in-hand with policies like the Regional Development Fund. The fund is intended to invest in the poorest, sub-national, regions of the EU to raise the standard of living up, so no country can look to undercut another on basic standards or be cut out left unfairly behind.

Externally the protections, of standards and rights, require trading partners to meet certain conditions for access to Europe's common market - like those of Norway and Switzerland that have been much publicised as alternatives in for the UK during this EU referendum campaign.

All of these ideals depend, however, on who is in charge of policy and negotiation at the EU. Right now, it is the conservatives of many EU member states who are in the ascendency and control policy and decision making at the European level. As a result, the EU's actions have been tinged with conservatism.

Within that system, it has been the Right, and the far right, who have been the ones pushing most aggressively for the UK to do away with the EU's standards - though it has faced resistance. The solution for the Right has become doing away with the EU, but keeping the market intact, as they still want to trade with Europe, but want to be undercut everyone else and help big business pad its profits by doing away with concern for the environment or workers' rights.

What do progressives want from trade?

Exiting the EU will require new trade deals to be negotiated. The conservative Right is unlikely to make those standards and regulations any kind of priority in its negotiations. Maybe, of course, those who want a 'left exit', unrestricted by the European system, will get a government of the Left before too long, to set about forming a new progressive trade policy.

But what are progressives in Britain going to negotiate for, if not an ethical trade area? An ethical trade area underscored by democratic accountability and cooperation?

Even a progressive exit would mean the dismantling of systems of cooperation, decades in the making, that have supported advances in rights, in a move that could only make the Far Right happy - only to have to then try to rebuild it all over again.

Right now for progressives, fighting corporate power and ensuring trade is conducted ethically and with appropriate standards and rights protections, remaining in the EU - not idly, but campaigning for progressive, democratic reforms - is still the best option.

This is Part 2 of  a multi-part series, "The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum" - click here to go to the introductory hub

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.

John Bercow's misinterpreted laugh was a mirthless acknowledgement of the fruitless fight for political reform

Speaker John Bercow has fought a long uphill battle to improve the public image and engagement of Parliament. Photograph: John Bercow by Julian Mason (License) (Cropped)

During the tense and heated Syria debate, the House of Commons was for once at full capacity. The significance afforded to the event saw not only high attendance by MPs through out the day, but also saw Speaker John Bercow chair the entire eleven-hour session (May, 2015).

While Bercow received praise for his uninterrupted chairing of the debate, he also came in for criticism for a laugh, at the debate's end, that seems to have been widely misinterpreted. Those familiar with the habits of Members of Parliament may well have interpreted that laugh very differently.

When the debate on Syrian intervention came to an end, Bercow's announcement of further business in the Commons was greeted with laughter by MPs rising en masse and heading for the exits. Some have considered the moment disrespectful or part of some ill-judged and ill-timed jest (Dearden, 2015).

And yet, considered in the proper context, that laugh tells a different story.

An empty chamber for Parliamentary debates is not an unusual occurrence, with MPs turning up in the Commons only for matters of their own interest, or for the 'big' occasions, only to leave for the 'smaller' affairs (The Telegraph, 2014).

Over the years of his Speakership, Bercow has been actively attempting to reform how Parliament is run and to update its procedures and, in particular, its public image (Parliament, 2011). Yet his criticisms of MPs heckling (Perraudin, 2015; BBC, 2013), or attempts to modernise elections with e-voting as part of a push towards more public engagement (BBC, 2015), have all too frequently run into a wall.

In that light, Bercow's laugh comes across as a knowing, mirthless, exasperation at the behaviour of Parliamentarians - as can be seen in the fuller version events, captured by Parliament's cameras but not included in the broadcast.

"Order. We come now to the petition... [Bercow smiles, forced to pause by MPs noisily abandoning the chamber]... I ask members leaving the chamber, however unaccountably, please to do so quickly and quietly so we can hear the petition from the Right Honourable Lady the Member for Chesham and Amersham."

That petition was, to labour the point, on the "mandatory reporting of child abuse" - not exactly a matter of small consequence.

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat Health spokesperson, is only amongst the latest to run into the not an unusual occurrence of an empty chamber. His debate, regarding out-of-area placements for mental health care appointments (Dickson, 2015), saw a drastically poor turnout of around half a dozen that left Lamb conducting most of the discussion with two of his Lib Dem colleagues.

The archaic institutions of Parliament and the habits of MPs have long been warned of as one source of the alienation felt by the public from politics. The late Charles Kennedy argued that alienating the public from politics was a dangerous venture (2006).

"Fewer people are joining political parties, yet single-issue pressure groups continue to flourish. Mass international movements - from opposition to the war in Iraq to last year's Live 8 - demonstrate how great issues and principles can still motivate on a huge scale. But somehow our current political culture seems unable to accommodate and address such concerns...

...The danger in all of this is that if sufficient people conclude that there is nothing in the conventional political process for them then they may opt for more simplistic and extreme options on offer. I remain an optimist. But across the mainstream political spectrum there is a candid recognition of the danger."

These concerns are not confined to Parliamentary institutions. The efforts of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to carry on a project of reform within the Labour Party, has faced resistance by party MPs who, the reformers say, feel their position and power is threatened the proposed changes (McDonnell, 2015).

In his party reforms, Corbyn has said he wants members to have greater power (Boffey & Helm, 2015). Yet, like Bercow, Corbyn is likely to find the establishment difficult to shift - not least when it comes to increasing public engagement by giving the public more direct power within institutions, often at the expense of their representatives (Bryant, 2015).

Speaker John Bercow has fought a long and seemingly fruitless war to reform how the House of Commons works, up against a Parliament that refuses to shake off its disastrous habits. That fact was clearly on display through the Syria debate, demonstrated in full by the treatment of Jeremy Corbyn during his rebuttal to the Prime Minister in the Syria debate, in which he was loudly heckled and shouted down from the government benches throughout (Stone, 2015).

Today, the UK is governed by a Conservative ministry that holds majority power, although it was elected on only 36% of the vote and hold the support of only a quarter of the registered eligible voters.

Tomorrow, the temporary victory of those campaigning for votes at 16 (Jarrett, 2015) - extending voting rights to finally cover all adult citizens - will likely be extinguished by the Conservative majority in the Commons. With its defeat goes another opportunity for reform.

That inequitable situation will not improve until there is comprehensive political reform. Since the establishment seemingly refuses to bow to even the sternest efforts to change its ways, the burden is now upon citizens to take up the campaign.

Establishment figures like Bercow and party rebels like Corbyn, or vocal campaigners for electoral reform like Caroline Lucas, cannot win lasting change with out active support. Corbyn's election as Labour Party leader was one small demonstration of what can be achieved by engaged citizens. But there is still much more to be done - and it can't be left to representatives.

Cameron & Osborne's long term plan for austerity is now deep into territory even Conservatives are finding hard to accept

David Cameron's long term austerity plan is starting to worry Conservatives, but he and ministers seem to be blissfully unaware of the human impact of cuts upon even working families. Photograph: Prime Minister David Cameron - official photograph by Number 10 (License) (Cropped)

With their defeat in the Lords on Tax Credit cuts, the Conservatives seem to be in a bit of a crisis (Morris & Grice, 2015). While Chancellor George Osborne has assured anyone who will listen that he has found his next round of cuts (BBC, 2015), a massive 30% from departmental budgets to be announced at the spending review, he has faced opposition from his own party.

Former Conservative Prime Minister John Major called for a rethink of the government's approach in light of rising inequality and the impact of policies upon the poorest (Quinn, 2015). There has even been opposition from the Conservative controlled work and pensions select committee.

The members of the select committee argued that cuts are at their limit and urged the Chancellor to take a pause and rethink his priorities (Wintour, 2015). Combined with the Conservative MPs who spoke out against Tax Credit cuts and those that would not back a slackening of Sunday trading laws (Dathan, 2015; Lansdale, 2015) - which led to that proposal being withdrawn (BBC, 2015{2}) - the government is under growing pressure to back down and change direction.

Yet it seems unlikely that, in the long run, David Cameron's Ministry will deviate from its general course. The broadest evidence for that is the Prime Minister's own bafflingly ill-informed letter to Ian Hudspeth, the leader of his native Oxfordshire county council, criticising cuts to services (Monbiot, 2015; Oliver, 2015).

Cameron's apparent ignorance of the depth of impact from his own economic policy is yet another example of the Conservative failure, or refusal, to address the human cost of their policies (Morse, 2015; Stewart & Elliott, 2015). According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the burden of cuts has been falling almost squarely upon those least able to bear it (Hastings et al, 2015).

Essential services like social care are being stretched thin and, as Cameron himself notes, staples of British civil society like libraries and museums have already had their funding cut (The Independent, 2015). And yet, the most well off have been sheltered.

Opposing and mitigating the deeply negative impact of the cuts on citizens requires two things. First, the progressives on the opposition benches have to unite behind broad, common positions. And so, second, moderate Conservatives willing to rebel against government policy can move decisively to check negative plans. It has been seen before over the seven months of this government: only a broad Parliamentary effort can successfully defeat the government's, albeit thin, majority.

As John Major admitted, inequality isn't about skivers or scroungers. It's about those with opportunities and those without them - and that second category is at risk of being flooded with the 'working families' Conservatives have tried to make a staple of their support.

The key for progressives is to make sure concerned Conservatives see how much hurt austerity can and will bring down upon the very people they depend upon for votes in their constituencies - to show them just how toxic it can be to have a lack of compassion and consideration.

The confrontation between government and opposition over Tax Credits is exposing the need to reform the House of Lords

David Lloyd George took on a Tory Landowner dominated House of Lords in his efforts to pass his Liberal 'People's Budget' of 1909. Photograph: Statue of David Lloyd George in Parliament Square by Matt Brown (License) (Cropped)

Attempts earlier this week by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Crossbench Lords to block the much derided Tax Credit cuts, where derailed yesterday due to fears of sparking a constitutional crisis (Wintour, 2015; Wintour, 2015{2}). Opposition parties where warned against threatening contravention of established parliamentary conventions by the Commons Speaker John Bercow (Wintour, 2015{3}.

The move marked an odd moment for progressive politics in the UK. Since Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George sought to take on the House of Lords in his attempt to pass his 1909 budget, the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords has been clearly defined: the Lords cannot impede the government's supply bills, which are concerned with taxation and government spending and, through the later establishment of the Salisbury Convention, the opposition should not block government manifesto promises for which their election is seen as a clear mandate.

The decision of progressives to use the Lords, against which Lloyd George had struggled when it was controlled by an overwhelming Tory majority, represents a severely pragmatic choice.

While the actual threat of constitutional crisis from the Lords blocking Tax Credit cuts has been called into question - on account of whether the changes actually counts as primary, budgetary legislation due to an election campaign promise not to cut them, and no reference to cutting them in the Conservative manifesto (Daily Politics, 2015) - there is a need to stop and consider the implications beyond the legal minutiae.

Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats (in particular) have proposed, considered and attempted reform of the House of Lords in the past. Liberal Democrat attempts where foiled during the last government, due to obstinacy from Labour and Conservatives (BBC, 2015); and during the last election campaign Labour pledged to replace the Lords with a Senate of the Nations and Regions (Labour, 2015).

The willingness of the opposing parties to even approach a risk of crisis certainly shows is the depth of opposition to the Tax Credit changes, even growing with the Conservative Party itself (Watt, 2015), and the limited legitimate instruments available to the opposition to challenge their passage.

But the hypocrisy it engenders also marks out the need for reform. The UK has an entire, massive and expensive, unelected chamber that cannot act. Any of its votes, and the legitimacy of any of its actions, can be called into question because its assembled numbers are not elected. This is an unacceptable state of affairs.

Contrary to Prime Minister David Cameron's belief that the issue has passed by and should be left alone (Wintour & Watt, 2015), it remains of importance. Issues like Tax Credit cuts are too important for the legislative instruments through which they pass, or in which they are opposed, to be anything less than transparent, clearly purposed and above controversy.

Whether that means establishing a directly proportionally elected upper chamber, or one representative of the nations and regions - in either case holding a longer term view, as opposed to the shorter term community and municipality based Commons - change is needed.

The problem facing the progressive parties, is what to do with those institutions in the meantime. The pragmatic decision - that has clearly been made by Labour and the Lib Dems - is to continue using those instruments as they presently are, despite their problematic nature, because the policies they oppose demand a response and they are the only legal instruments at their disposal.

It is a pragmatic position that Lloyd George would likely have agreed with. Despite being a reformer, Lloyd George was prepared to flood the Lords with newly ennobled Liberals to get his way and, later, the Welsh Prime Minister was still prepared to go into coalition with the Conservatives to pursue his policies.

Their are alternative paths, such as the decision by Justin Trudeau - Liberal leader and newly elected Prime Minister of Canada - to withdraw the Liberal whip from unelected Liberal senators (Mackrael & Wingrove, 2014). Yet such idealistic statements risk getting in the way of practical politics, like opposing policies that have been alleged to risk impoverishing millions of people.

The only solution to this conflict between idealism and pragmatism is to reform the Lords, along with broader electoral reform - for which the necessity is demonstrated by the fact that the controversial Tax Credits policy can only be pursued by the government because the Conservatives hold an unrepresentative majority of seats. Unless there is real reform and clear representation, the policies of any government and the tactics of any opposition will continue to be challenged and undermined.