Conference round-up: What are the main takeaways from party conference season?

The time of austerity is coming to an end. Or at least that is the overaching message of party conference season. It invites the bigger question of whether the Conservatives would actually be willing and able to deliver it's end.

Last year's election showed the Tories that even a coordinated media bashing of Corbyn wasn't enough to dampen enthusiasm for the content of the Labour manifesto and their call for a step change away from the time of austerity.

The Conservatives know they have to adapt. But they will start only by changing their message, rather than reinforcing that with any particularly drastic change in funding - hence Theresa May telling Prime Ministers Questions that austerity was going to end, but not 'fiscal responsibility'.

The Chancellor Philip Hammond used his conference speech to hint at a change of message, telling party members the Conservatives couldn't afford to be a party of 'no change'. The Prime Minister followed that up by saying austerity was coming to an end.

Opposition scepticism is entirely appropriate.

The Tories will be reluctant converts to the anti-austerity cause (except, perhaps those in local government), and the move was probably forced Labour's unabashed commitments to higher taxes, more spending and a definitive end to austerity.

In fact, Paul Johnson at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) called the Labour proposals the most radical in a long time, capable of deeply affecting the UK economy, and transforming expectations and assumptions about how the economy will work.

The other main lesson of conference season was, obviously, Brexit. As it has taken over every other aspect of politics in Britain, so it has taken over party conference season.

The Tories were, as usual, mired in their three way factional splits - hard right Brexiters, moderate Remainers and Theresa May's split the difference

However, Labour took a step towards laying out in more certain terms their position - with the party more or less all onboard. The party's red lines, particularly a customs union agreement, were supplemented by a commitment to a People's Vote second referendum in the event that final deal fails to pass muster.

The party's preference remains to force an election on Brexit, but the concession Labour's Remainers, to support a People's Vote to ensure the public get a say, is a step towards bringing the party to a (mostly) united position.

Meanwhile, as would be expected, the Liberal Democrats lambasted all who would oppose a People's Vote second referendum. But beneath the business as usual, it was good to see the party's radical liberal factions put some progressive ideas on the table - such as a sovereign wealth fund and more support for cooperatives.

The Greens had the same mix of Brexit and domestic policy at their conference. On the domestic front, they pushed for wellbeing - particularly relating to free time - to get a higher place in our measurement of the UK's economic and living standards.

Finally, the SNP joined their push for a second referendum on Scottish Independence with opening the way for their MPs to support a second referendum on Brexit. While it isn't a straightforward piece of arithmetic, opposing Brexit is consistent with how people in Scotland have voted and may prepare better ground for their own ambitions.

The onrolling Brexit steamroller aside, the end of austerity was the biggest headline. It would seem that Theresa May is right, that austerity coming to an end - but in spite of them, not because of them. The Tories seem to sense the mood is shifting.

There is a big opportunity ahead for the progressive parties, to undermine the case for austerity and drag out into the light the ideological choices that enforced it and the consequences of the Conservative choice to impose it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Affordable Housing: That seven years of government was nearly reduced to a bitter meme reflects disappointment with Conservative broken promises

Conservative flagship housing policies have yet to deliver anything even resembling an affordable housing market where young people can get their foot on the ladder.

When the phrase "No Deposit Required" started trending on social media on Sunday, there was a rumble of excitment. Unfortunately, it was not trending for the reason that people, momentarily, thought it was (it was actually a gambling promotion).

The mistaken belief was that it was a brave new housing policy announcement, with an level of ambition that might make a real dent in the housing crisis. A policy that might really help make home ownership affordable.

The trend quickly became filled with the same joke - "I thought this was a housing policy, but..." - and, for a moment, seven years of government teetered on the brink of being reduced to a single bitter meme.

That disappointment is dangerous for such a weak government and, that it spread so easily in a free form moment, is a big threat to a party that relies so heavily on well practised, old media control over the message and tone of politics.

The Conservatives rely on controlling public discourse and their grip is slipping. That is a sign of Conservative failure, symbolised by Philip Hammond's Autumn Budget in which he promised help to young people toward owning homes.

The breakdown of his signature offer of cutting stamp duty for first time buyers, however, is a narrow policy whose benefit will mostly be helpful to those who are already home owners - a key Conservative audience - and beyond a narrow group, may actually lead to homes being more expensive.

While Hammond put his faith in tinkering around the edges, with some subtle shifts in regulation, it's clear that out there in the public imagination tackling the growing crisis of affordable housing is going to take bigger ideas.

The fact that there was excitment about a policy of no deposits when buying a house - a policy that would come at an extraordinary cost, even for renters - shows just how far the May-Hammond government is from the scale of response the public is expecting.

For Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, that will be music to their ears - perhaps a sign that their message is getting through or has a receptive audience. However, Labour is not free from singeing by the burn of this particular trending topic.

Housing is an issue that no party has adequately dealt with - not even William Beveridge, when he drew his ideas for the welfare system, had an answer for housing.

Homes are too expensive and the growth and security of incomes is low and sliding. Land and property remain archaic, rentier dominated, sectors - cartels like great spiders sat in webs in the midst our economy, catching our resources, extracting and hoarding them.

Conservative failures and broken promises have fed disappointment that risks turning bitter. Progressives must take seriously the need to unravel these webs, and push out the fat lazy spiders, on which so much of our economic potential is snagged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Election 2017 - Housing: There is a progressive consensus that Britain needs more homes and more protection for renters

The future of housing in Britain is a key issue, for which the main parties rarely have a convincing answer.

It is not an overstatement to say that housing is in crisis in Britain. The housing and homelessness charity Shelter are stern in their assessment of a Britain that is short on affordable housing and facing the rise in precariousness and powerlessness that follows.

The Conservative approach to the crisis has been half-measures and pointed fingers. Despite the facts not agreeing with them, the Tory government has insisted it has built more houses than Labour - placing the present problems at their opponents feet.

Meanwhile their own response has amounted to mostly shoring up their own supporters. Disproportionately to the disadvantage of the least well off, the Tories have raided the public sector- councils and housing association - for more homes to prop up a housing market reluctant to build.

The Conservatives continue to make promises. In the Autumn, as they acknowledged they have failed to meet targets, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Sajid Javid announced plans for a mix of funds and loans to get back on target.

Theresa May has announced, during the current campaign, that new land will be made available for Councils to build social housing - though, they'll still be sold off after ten to fifteen years. And the plan isn't new, just a re-announcement of previous spending commitments.

It is painfully unclear that Conservative plans will not do much of anything to affect the fundamental problems.

What is clear is that there is a progressive consensus to be found on housing. Across the Left and Centre, there is a realisation that - at the raw heart of the matter - more homes need to be built. There is no escaping from that reality.

The Labour response has been to pledge a million new homes over five years. The plan accounts for half of those to be council and housing association homes, to be made available for affordable rents. The pledge was accompanied by a commitment to ensuring more secure tenancies and end bad letting practices.

The Liberal Democrats by comparison have pitched for 300,000 new homes a year across the next parliament. As is becoming more common, they have combined this with a plan to allow councils to levy penalty fees on absentee landlords with empty homes - up to 200% of council tax.

This theme of building homes, tackling bad landlording and taking on the problem of empty homes is also present in the Green Party's policy announcements. Their proposals pretty much match Labour's step for step and include the Lib Dems focus on bringing empty homes back into use.

However, what no party has offered is a concrete means of dealing with the fundamental problem: a 259% rise in house prices over just twenty years. The standard response has been simply to increase the sheer number of houses - hoping that increasing market supply alone will drive down prices.

Certainly, making rental more secure, longer termed and protected from bad practices - like hiked rents or exorbitant fees - more widely available will go some way to providing viable alternatives to home ownership, that will increase competitive pressure.

But at some point, some party or movement will have to address the fundamental roadblock to housing reform in Britain: the interests of homeowners, landlords, developers and the government being so closely aligned and deeply invested in the continued increase in property values as to form a cartel.

This problem goes deep into the heart of Britain's economic system and find there problems that are supposed to be extinct.

The rentier - the magnate who makes their unearned income from rent - is seen as an issue of the early twentieth and even nineteenth century, but remains a problem in modern Britain.

It was one of the things that originally led liberals to coalesce into a party to fight: the power of aristocratic landlords who maintained their wealth and privilege on the back of the work of others. Their answer was to fight for earned income to replace rent income.

Yet conservatism adapted and capitalism has kept alive at its core a rentier class, that finds disproportionate advantage. The continued prevalence of inherited wealth and the huge privilege afforded to wealth, allows a class to virtually exclude others from access to one of the most basic needs: shelter.

Addressing the grip of this cartel just simply isn't in the interest of a government - not least conservatives. In Britain, so much has been staked on 'financialisation' and that investment speculation is deeply entwined with property.

But what is the answer? The strong or expansive economies of countries like Germany and Singapore both have huge public ownership of land and housing and in the last twenty years have not seen prices rise like they have amidst Britain's private finance and privatisation boom.

The progressive parties are all putting forward plans that will be an improvement upon Conservative policy and there is real and meaningful overlap in their ideas. They recognise that Britain needs more decent affordable homes and renters need protection. That alone is enough to vote for progressive parties on the issue of housing, over Tories that raid social housing to feed an out of control market.

But the big answers on housing have yet to make their way into the party mainstream in Britain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing White Paper: Government looks only to patch over the Housing Crisis

Last week the government released its "fixing our broken housing market" white paper, with which it promised reforms that would fight market failures with radical measures.

Radical measures are certainly needed. Britain is in the midst of a housing crisis, were the poor and young are excluded, from both ownership and rental, by housing shortages and by what effectively amounts to a self-enriching cartel.

In terms of the shortage, Shelter have said that the gap between housing need and supply is around 150,000 a year, with some estimates putting the shortfall over the past twenty years at 2.5m (Griffiths & Jefferys, 2013; Halligan, 2017).

In his statement, acknowledging that the house price to average income ratios have gone up from 3.5 to 7.5 in the past twenty years, including under the Coalition, Communities Minister Sajid Javid told the House that the government recognised that the drain on people's income that housing - even rental - had become was a huge barrier to social progress (Javid, 2017).

But the excuses crept in quickly: claims that Labour didn't build enough and councils have ducked decisions and don't plan properly. There were also promises, of transparency, of faster construction, of coordinated public investments, to encourage greater innovation by opening the building market beyond the ten companies that build 60% of homes.

Renters were also paid some attention. Javid promised to promote longer-term tenancies, to tackle unfair terms and to improve safeguards - on top of the previous promises to ban agent's fees.

Now, there are two levels of critique for holding a government white paper to account. The first is the thing it promises. Does it contain a good policy? The second is delivery. Does the government have a record of following through and will it do so this time?

As with the government's prized right-to-buy scheme, the government's white paper does not seem to be offering solutions sufficient to deal with the full scale of the problem, although the government at least seems to recognise that there is a serious problem (Easton, 2017). There are some positive steps - if there is follow through. But it all seems like wallpapering over the cracks.

Meanwhile, the government seems content to continue feeding the beast. As when it chose to drain social housing to make up its for sale housing numbers, now it seems intent to just keep things afloat a little longer - build a few more houses, a bit more quickly, with a bit more market competition - and leave the new ideas to someone else.

All of this just shovels more of the UK's precious resources into an extremely greedy fire - as demonstrated by the government pitching houses costing £250,000, even after discounts, for households with combined incomes under £90,000, as 'affordable homes' (BBC, 2017).

As for delivery? In the past six years in office, the house price to average income ratio has continued to grow and the overall increase in housing costs have been extreme (Full Fact, 2015). Waiting lists for social housing remain long and even rental costs, both private and social, are becoming unsustainable.

During the Labour dominated late 1990s and 2000s, house building was usually between 150,000-200,000, falling to between 100,000-150,000 in the later art of the decade before the Conservatives came to office.

The Conservatives made no promises on housebuilding in 2010 and didn't break that pattern. In 2014 there were 125,000 new homes. By 2016, a corner had perhaps been turned. Javid claimed 190,000 were built last year. However, homelessness has also risen sharply, under the impact of private rents and cut to welfare support (BBC, 2017{2}).

In 2015 the Conservatives promised around 475,000 new homes by 2020 - of which about 55,000 a year were to be affordable homes and 40,000 a year were to be starter homes (CPA, 2015). Yet the number of households, by the government's own statistics, is set to rise by more than double their promised housebuilding targets (Full Fact, 2015). And the promised ban on agent's fees has yet to materialise (Collinson & Elgot, 2017).

Neither David Cameron's ministry nor Theresa May's have acted decisively on housing. Both governments plans patched things over and kept just enough houses in circulation on property markets to keep key property owning voters happy.

The reality is that a Conservative government cannot deal with the essential problem: that a cartel of property owners, developers and investors can only justify obscene investments with ever increasing property values and rents - that are utterly unsustainable.

How can a Conservative say no to these people? Well-to-do home owners, profit-making businesses and financial investors? That is basically a list of the key Conservative supporters. So for now, all there will be is a white paper to patch things up.

All the pressures of the 1930s were collected in the Spanish Civil War, which reminds us that progressives must unite and start writing the story of our times

Image: Flag of the Second Spanish Republic from Pixabay (License)

This summer marked the eightieth anniversary of the Spanish Civil War and this week, eighty years ago, the International Brigades marched into Madrid to defend the Republic from Franco's Nationalists.

The volunteers of the International Brigades came from around the world, including much needed experienced soldiers from the Great War. Of the first three thousand soldiers, most died in the first days of the Battle of Madrid, to stall the fascist advance and delay their victory - even as the Republic's nominal international allies stood by and watched, moderates outraged by Republican radicalism and hoping to merely contain or appease the far right.

Ultimately, however, the Nationalists conclusively conquered Spain and completed their mutinous coup d'etat. But it would not have been possible without plenty of international help of their own, from the fascist dictators of Germany and Italy - who sent professional forces and materiel to Franco.

These tales of the far right spreading, of progressives and moderates lost and struggling to unify or to recognise their commonality, of strife between progress and tradition, is a compellingly recognisable one today for those watching the rise of Trump in America, or Brexit in the UK and the Front National in France. So too is the appeasement and the retreat to reactive, surrendering the creation of the story of the times to the far right.

Spain's second shortlived Republic died beneath the boot of international fascist cooperation, even as the dozens of progressive factions fell upon each. And with it was swept away the achievements of the Republic's almost recklessly progressive government.

Under Manuel Azana and his Republican Left, an amalgamation of different republican parties, the dismantling of the overbearing establishment began. First as Prime Minister and then as President, Azana led efforts to modernise Spain, to make it secular, open and tolerant.

It pursued the three most prominent aspects of the establishment: the army, the church and the landowners. An Army with 800 generals, but just 16 divisions in need of them, was faced with reforms, redundancies and cuts. The Church, as under the Radicals in France a few decades earlier, faced the secularising of education - ostensibly to take the poor out from under its grip and influence. And an agrarian reform program, sought to confiscate large private landholdings (latifundia) and distribute them among the rural poor.

However, these progressive and secular policies - sought by the Republican Left in a Popular Front partnership with regional nationalists, discontented workers with strong trade unions, and an anarchist movement without parallel anywhere in the world in either scope or success - were being pursued in a country with a deeply embedded and deeply conservative establishment, only recently shorn of its figureheads, that felt vulnerable and was not yet ready for such radical reform. The pressed on, but did not take enough of a frightened people with them.

Violent clashes erupted between the Left and establishment Right. Propaganda was everywhere. Into the vacuum opened by the old establishment's ousting stepped fascism and it spoke to conservatives of all classes: it spoke to their prejudices and condoned them, spoke to their fears and made them feel strong, spoke to their problems and offered scapegoats.

In the time of Brexit and President Elect Donald J Trump, were the centre is failing and the radical Left and far Right are competing for the support of the disaffected, it seems that the problems of the 1930s - crystallised in the factional divides of Spain - have resurfaced.

The poor, the 'white working-class', found themselves on many sides - Left, Right and Centre - in the 1930s, and do so again today. Roosevelt built an alliance with them in the United States, but Hitler rallied them in Germany. In Spain they were divided, progressive from conservative. International allies, progressives and moderates, did not get behind the Republic and only reacted, seeking only contain, embrace and control the far right movements.

The question being asked - honestly, since as long ago as 2008 and the start of social democracy's decline - is how progressives can 'reconnect' with the working class, seemingly more convinced by the far right's appeals to their conservative values.

One argument that has persisted, and has been seen most readily in the UK and distressingly amongst moderates, has stressed the need to at least lightly indulge bigotry with populist appeals. To abandon openness and tolerance, in the name of the allegedly 'greater good' of grabbing power.

The trouble with that argument is that it treats the views of the people as innate and unshakeable values, even adopts them and praises them as 'tradition' - with nationalism, for instance, treated as a universal given. All that has done is fan the flames, encouraging and spreading intolerance, helping it to find a language and context to legitimise itself.

It also discounts the possibility of changing minds. While there are surely some with deeply ingrained and unwaveringly intolerant nationalism beating in their breast, history teaches that most just want a better life and are looking for a compelling narrative that inspires their confidence.

The times, the pressures, and the dominant narratives by which we understand them - these things play crucial roles in where the people will place their confidence, whether in the Left or in the Right. And it is control over these forces that progressives have surrendered, too much for far too long, in the name of an electoral strategy aimed at taking and holding power.

In the 1930s, fascism spread while its opponents were divided and weakened - often co-opting the establishment and its traditional values as its own. The Republic in Spain was left isolated by international allies even as the people took up arms, in many countries, to defend it.

But the Republic also lost an important fight: it failed to organise, to coordinate, to align its factional narratives into a single compelling story. And many of those factions saw those supported more conservative groups as inherently opponents, and attacked them and alienated them.

As in the 1930s, the far right has gotten to grips with the forces at play and produced a seductive narrative, absolving national majorities of fault and offering them simplistic, crude solutions that play to revisionist nostalgia - aided by a conservative elite that still hope to exploit or control these movements as they grow.

But where is the progressive alternative?

The American Presidential Election is yet another warning to progressives, of all factions from radical to moderate, that differences must be put aside in pursuit of the broader aims of justice and liberty, equality and empowerment, and in all of these sustainability.

The issues affecting the working poor are clear: housing and energy cost too much, work is precarious and pays too little, opportunities and security are scarce and fragile. Ideas around community and cooperative action, of democratic empowerment, that confronts these ills even exists.

So where is the progressive narrative?

It isn't progressive to dismiss the fears of the working class, but nor is it to blindly embrace the narratives spread among them by the far right. The reality is that to achieve true progressive reform you must take the people with you.

To do that, if the Left is to reach out to people, it needs its own compelling story to explain the times. That means bringing together policies into a vision, of the present and the future. And for that to be effective, the Left has to stop surrendering to the Right the creation of the story that explains our times.

To achieve its goals, the Living Wage must be part of a comprehensive policy of reform

The Living Wage Foundation has designated this week as Living Wage Week, with the aim of spreading a broader awareness of the measure and what it fights for: the right to a decent standard of living (Ainsley, 2016).

Its launch coincides with the announcements today of the recommended living wage, as part of the voluntary living wage scheme, being instituted by civil administrations in London, Scotland and Wales along with a number of major firms (Living Wage Foundation, 2016) - the actual Living Wage, higher than the government's 'National Living Wage'.

At a time of rising prices and economic uncertainty, an increase in pay will be a very welcome boost for many of the most vulnerable and those facing hard times. But the idea of minimum wages has been controversial in economics. There are sore divisions over the idea of an intervention through the law to 'artificially' raise wages.

For those on the neoliberal economic right, setting minimum wage thresholds are an artificial inflation of the costs of business, where costs are seen as the primary problem. From their view, the priority should be to reduce costs, so to increase competition, and through both together to reduce prices - allowing market-set wages to go further (The Economist, 2015).

On the interventionist economic left, there has been a delicate negotiated balance to strike. With trade unions for instance, there is a need achieve better returns for workers on the one hand, while also ensuring the long term affordability of pay so as to avoid future closures and lay offs.

What particularly concerns both Left and Right is that business, faced with wage inflation, may decide they have little choice but to begin to replace many basic low pay jobs with cheaper automation (The Economist, 2015{2}).

It is absolutely clear that it is just that people get proper returns for a their labour. And further, it makes sense. The OECD has stressed that economic inequality hurts economic growth and therefore the general prosperity (OECD, 2014). That makes measures of redistribution from shareholders to workers, and a fairer distribution of the 'rewards' between them, essential.

However. There can be no complacency. An economy is an intricate web and pulling at one string has knock on affects for the whole network - especially when progressive administrations are not the only ones pulling strings that have decisive results. To achieve the aim of a decent standard of living, just wages must be seen as an integral part of a broader policy of reform, which must look also to the other side of the equation: the cost of living.

In two key sectors, in housing and in energy, high costs have a devastating impact on the economy and the lives of all citizens, especially the most vulnerable. A secure wage goes hand in hand with secure housing and affordable energy - a Living Wage needs the companionship of a Living Rent.

The third aspect of any broad progressive economic policy has to be tackling the thoroughly unequal distribution of power over economic decision-making. Too much decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of too few, creating vested interests inclined to behave like cartels.

Only with all three together - giving citizens the guarantee of a reasonable reward for work, the security of basic housing and energy, and enfranchisement in the making of economic decisions - can the economy serve the needs and wishes of citizens rather than just those of narrow and self-serving interest groups.

And, as a final note, the fear of automation must at some point be addressed. With it, there will also need to be an assessment of our attitudes to welfare, to how work is rewarded, and even our definition of work itself. Above all pursuing one goal: that progress should serve citizens, not disinherit them.