May calls on MPs to get on with Brexit and move on - but it's her government's own doing that it's consumed all political space

This afternoon, Theresa May addressed the Commons to present the terms she has negotiated for Britain's exit from the European Union. As may well have been expected at this point, it did not get a warm reception. All the big hitters were queued up to get in their licks.

After yet another hostile session, the Prime Minister may very well have been feeling like the constituents she has now taken to quoting: ready to just get on with Brexit and move on. But it's the PM's own approach that has brought us to this Parliamentary impasse.

A referendum, a snap election and two years of legislative time have been poured into Brexit - along with billions from the treasury and repeated knocks taken by the economy with the instability caused by each new jarring announcement.

In that time, domestic policy has taken the backseat. That has been a disaster both in terms of scrutiny and delivery.

The government's flagship welfare 'reform' the Universal Credit has rolled from one crisis to another. Supposed to be the consolidation of a number of different welfare programmes into a more efficient and affordable system, it has faced ever mounting problems.

The minister who had been the driving force behind it quit when he was severely undercut on funding. The attached fitness assessments have been derided as cruel. Even a rapporteur for the United Nations has deeply criticised the misery inflicted upon the most vulnerable by a government pursuing ideological ends.

The government has claimed that Universal Credit has driven people into work, but this welfare system - underfunded, misadministered, and leaving vulnerable people at the mercy of growing debts - can only have motivated people in the worst way, with employment statistics covering an explosion in working poverty.

And those are just the headlines. The government has not done enough on housing. It has not done enough to meet environmental and energy targets. It has not done enough to encourage an economic system that can lift ordinary people out of poverty - on welfare or in work.

When Theresa May talks of constituents telling her to get on with Brexit, she may be reframing disgruntlement. It's May's government that has turned politics in Britain into nothing but Brexit - and in the process has managed to deeply divide the country.

With so many domestic issues in need of attention, Brexit needs to be settled. But what Parliamentarians can't do is make a hasty decision under pressure - for which the Prime Minister is pushing.

May's government has put us here and shouldn't be allowed to use it to sneak out from under their own mess.moving towards resolving the deeply important and long term domestic issues that have gone unattended under May's watch.

Form of a Question: How we talk politics matters and context is too often neglected

How we talk politics in the public sphere matters. In political interviews, the most common space, we need to consider carefully the form of questions, because context is often neglected despite mattering deeply.

Owen Jones stirred up a few hornets nests in the last week, by calling into question both the ingrained privilege and biases of those who work in the British media. Despite some angry response, the statistics align with his point.

It is important to question our assumptions. To look at the facts from a number of angles. It is the job of any good journalist. And that, sometimes, means journalists looking at themselves and those they work with.

Especially when it comes the politics in it's rawest form, we need to think and act carefully. The media doesn't just shine a ray of light on the lay of the land, it gives structure to the whole weather system and decides what parts of it we are even able to see.

For most viewers, the crucible in which most Westminster politics is consumed is in the form of the political interview. From Andrew Neil, Laura Kuenssberg and Andrew Marr at the BBC, to Robert Peston at ITV or Krishnan Guru-Murthy at Channel 4, it is a high profile format.

It's also a highly problematic format. I'm not looking here to tear down any practitioners of the political interview 'genre'. But there are questions that should be raised about it's dynamics and how the process unfolds.

The way interviewers approach these set-pieces raise a lot of questions - all of which need careful thoughts. They are gatekeepers to platforms, some with colossal reach. As such they have extraordinary political power, and that must always be held to account.

But here I want to focus on a very particular issue. At present, the common form of questioning in a standard political interview does two things - that might be thought of as mistakes - that seem to render the interviews futile.

From the outside, these interviews follow a particular course - as follows.

Mistake 1: The interviewer asks a question that is phrased in a way that casts them as a proxy for their interviewee's opponents. That means the interviewer adopts the opponent's subjective context as the framing device for the question - as in, what they, subjectively, construe as good and bad.

The result of this is that the interviewee avoids giving a straight answer. They instead attempt to reframe the question to their own - in essence, polemically opposed - context, simply because their own context is an intrinsic part of why they believe what the stand for is 'good'.

Mistake 2: The interviewer treats this attempt to reframe, on the part of the interviewee, as a refusal to give a straight answer and treats them as hostile. They demand that their interviewee give a simple answer within the invalid framing, despite it being fundamentally ill-fitting and distortionary to any answer that might be given.

The result is that the interviewee is rendered incapable of answering the question, as even if they wanted to give a straight answer - or often any answer at all - the framing of the question directly prevents them from doing so.

Any answer given by an interviewee, in this environment that rips it from its native context, is robbed of it's meaning and serves only the opponent's narrative.

Consider an example.

The Tories traditionally think that tax & spend is 'Bad'. So if Labour tax & spend, then Labour are framed as 'Bad' - in this case with the meanings of wasteful, redistributing in a socially negative way that rewards bad habits, etcetera.

However, Labour traditionally think that tax & spend is 'Good'. Yet to confirm their commitment within the framing of the Conservatives is incorrect - in this different context, the meaning is different. Context changes meaning.

That means that, in this scenario, a Labour spokesperson is rendered unable to answer such a question - without first being able to address, and contest, the context within which the answer will be understood.

In this hostile environment, unable to answer, they must either conform to the narrative, or fight it - leading to the perception of evasiveness under questioning or deception, both of which will be criticised.

These points matter.

One direct consequence of this form of questioning is that it creates the perception of politicians who won't answer questions, by directly preventing them from being able to.

In a world in which snippets of interviews are seen more than whole recordings, it also gives people an incorrect impression of deeply-biased mainstream journalists parroting the polarised positions of political parties.

This process, additionally, affords an absurd amount of power to those who 'create the political weather' - who lead the public conversations on values. To a media cycle built around creating and then reporting on, and thus reinforcing, public opinion.

There are no easy answers to this. What is the root of this? Is there perhaps a misunderstanding about what it means to be 'balanced'? Or is it as simple as time constraints?

Either way, context is being left out of the dominant form of political discussions. And that is a mistake. Possibly a tragic one. In politics, every idea, every policy, has a context that gives it meaning.

In fact the fight over the context is often far more important than the day to day fight over any given policy. It is the big war, fought behind the scenes - but it should be up front, in the spotlight.

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.

Macron appears to have consolidated power, but is there anything for 'centrists' to learn from his success? Not really

Macron's landslide was not quite what it appeared, exposing how neoliberal Centrism depends upon disinterest and abstention. Photograph: Emmanuel Macron campaign poster 'Macron President' in Paris by Lorie Shaull (License) (Cropped)

Nearly three-quarters of a year has passed since Emmanuel Macron took up the post of President of France. In that time he has seemingly managed to consolidate power (despite of some rocky moments). So: job done, new centrist model ready to roll out? Not so fast.

Well, let's look beneath the surface. The election landslides for Macron and La Republique En Marche were always going to provoke a response, especially with the near wipeout of the old centre-left Parti Socialiste (PS).

One small, but significant, reaction - an indication of how sizeable a reorganisation of French politics Macron has caused - is the reunification of the old Parti Radical with the breakaway Radical Party of the Left, as the new Mouvement Radical.

For years, the two radical parties - in former times a powerful party of government - were occasionally a crucial coalition partner of the larger parties. But they split from one another down the old left-right lines.

The Radical Party of the Left would partner with the Parti Socialiste and the centre-left, and the Radical Party would partner with the various centre-right parties. It appears that Emmanuel Macron has helped to settle the dispute between the two.

The reunification of the Radicals is a small thing, but also suggests that Macron's victory (and the collapse of PS) was big enough to put into abeyance the question of whether to partner with left or right. The radicals are happy with the centre.

That perhaps also says a lot about where Les Marcheurs lie on a political spectrum: European Federalist, social liberal, and for equality of opportunity (rather than of outcomes) within a free market.

Those were also the bones of Macron's pitch at the election. An election that left Macron with a severely weakened opposition, a a left-wing reduced to around 50-60 social liberals, social democrats and socialists, and a right-wing of around 130-140.

One potential problem Macron faced was if those with divided loyalties between En Marche and the social liberals and social democrats in opposition organise, Macron might face difficulty from a voting-bloc under his own left-wing.

However, the Left is still in disarray - and the Radicals seem set jump ship. The election was a disaster for the Parti Socialiste, it's bastion, who fell from 280 seats to just 30. Even their 2017 Presidential candidate Benoit Hamon has walked away.

Hamon has formed a new party, Generation.s, which has formed a tentative European alliance with Yanis Varoufakis and DiEM25. It had been hoped that Hamon might do for PS what Corbyn did for Labour in Britain, but now he will have to start from scratch.

There are also two separate far-left groups in the National Assembly, that have yet to find a way to work together - France Insoumise with 17 seats and Gauche Democrate et Republicaine with 16 seats.

With the collapse of the Left and, so far, no sign of a new rallying position, Macron has for the moment usurped the place of the Parti Socialiste in two-party system. Does this mean that the centre is saved and the model can be copy and pasted elsewhere?

No.

The hope for a centrist revival is not giving due credit the particular circumstances of Macron's victory - nor that both Macron and Les Marcheurs won, across the board, as the least worst option amidst raging disinterest. Not exactly an inspiring rallying call.

Macron's victory also has shadows of the upswell that took Barack Obama to  the US Presidency in 2008. Macron, undeniably a member of the party establishment, rode on the back of a movement that was then jettisoned when office was achieved.

The leading talents of that movement were absorbed into the government machinery, while the movement itself has been left without it's leading figures and central purpose. Will it survive or find a new role?

That Macron has succeeded in consolidating his position must still be put to the test at the ballot. As Obama learned, when you set high expectations, the movement will want practical changes it can touch. A legacy they can touch.

What Macron has right now is a governing majority. He doesn't even have a campaign machinery for himself or his supporters to sustain their agenda. Nothing has really changed over the past year.

Copy the En Marche model at peril. Macron's was a victory for charismatic leadership, but it's hollow inside. The future, never mind success, will depend on the support existing parties like MoDem and the Radicals, and the creation of some sort of plain, traditional electoral machinery for Les Marcheurs.

Macron's victory was a lesson in how to get into government, not in how to stay there. He made waves, a tidal wave, that upset the system and forced some realignment. But politics is fickle.

Alliances can seem unbreakable, until they aren't. Break ups are forever, until they aren't. Just ask the Radicals.

The Alternative Year: It's the little victories that keep us moving forward

Twenty Seventeen was... a year. While 2016 was always going to be tough act to follow, 2017 really did it's darnedest - and it was certainly eventful. Sequels are always difficult, but last year had turned many people numb.

But a lot that happened in 2017 that was important - and some of it was even positive. So here's our breakdown of four of the big political themes in Britain, Europe and around the world this year as The Alternative covered them - and a fifth point, in spirit of the season, looking forward.

I. Election of Opportunity

Theresa May wanted to cement seven years of Tory government with the certainty of five more years with a majority and saw an opening when polls put her a long way out front. Luckily for anyone sick to their teeth with the Tories, the election didn't go the way she thought it would.

The unnecessary election backfired. Theresa May survived the blow but it very nearly knocked her out of 10 Downing Street. Over the campaign, Corbyn's Labour made up a staggering amount of ground and proved it could win. The rhetoric had been wrong, the Corbyn brand was electable.

Theresa May, now without a majority, clung on to power with a coalition deal with the DUP - the Democratic Unionist Party, of Northern Ireland. Gone were the frills of the manifesto and in was a billion in extra funding for Northern Ireland.

Facing her in May and June was a resurgent Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn who was found to be more at home on the campaign trail than under the spotlights. But May also faced a patched up, locally-led, progressive alliance.

It wasn't the scale of cooperation that some hoped for (The Alternative, for instance), but it was a remarkable step that made a difference in a few of close battles. As a trial run, it showed promise for what alliance might achieve in the future.

Between Corbyn and the Progressive Alliance, it showed that the left had found how to win. But it was a beginning that needs an end. It's a job that needs finishing.

'General Election 2017: The Alternative guide to a critical general election for Britain'; in The Alternative; 8 May 2017.

'Election 2017: Is this the Progressive Alliance moment? It's up to you'; in The Alternative; 19 April 2017.

'General Election 2017 - A hopeful night for progressives: It's time to do opposition right'; in The Alternative; 9 June 2017.

'Queen's Speech: Theresa May has her DUP pact. What comes next for the Progressive Alliance in opposition?'; in The Alternative; 26 June 2017.

II. The Far Right Returns

Photograph: Bundestag by Hernán Piñera in 2011 (License)

And the left learning how to win again could not come at a better time, because the far right is back. It had been creeping up for years. UKIP. Brexit. That President. Cracks were appearing and the far right was beginning to slip itself through them. The presence of a far right party in the German Bundestag was only the latest warning.

In 2017, the far right began to win seats in European parliaments in earnest. And yet, everywhere they fell short of power. The far right failed to make the breakthroughs it was hoping for - despite apparently hefty backing from Russia, which was finally called out by leaders in Berlin and in Westminster.

In the Netherlands, in France, in Germany and in Britain, far right parties have not been able to breach a barrier at around 13% of the vote. For all the rhetoric of a 'far right surge', they're a long way from convincing the people of Europe to turn back the clock.

In these defeats of the far right, centrists and progressives were left with feelings of relief - and often proclaimed them loudly. But there is no future in that feeling. Progressives need real reasons for optimism, based on good ideas that take hold in the public imagination.

'Relief as Far Right falls short in Dutch election, but there's no future in that feeling: Progressives need reasons for optimism'; in The Alternative; 20 March 2017.

'French Legislative Elections: Macron's ascent asks a tough question of social democrats and social liberals'; in The Alternative; 20 June 2017.

'What next for Merkel and Germany?'; in The Alternative; 25 September 2017.

III. Neoliberalism Hanging On

Photograph: Emmanuel Macron campaign poster 'Macron President' in Paris by Lorie Shaull (License) (Cropped)

So far, the fact that far right has fallen short of power has been claimed as a victory for a certain kind of centrism and it's neoliberal hegemony - particularly in the case of President of France Emmanuel Macron.

But the yellow tide is not what it seems. Neoliberals are still winning the way they did in the 90s - by lethargy. With no better option, neoliberalism will continues to be the bitter pill that is accepted.

Neoliberalism is getting and staying in power aided by abstention as disinterest prevails and because the far right remains just repulsive enough that people are not persuaded by populist nationalism.

If neoliberal leaders are a bulwark, then they're a mossen edifice - an wooden post stood amid turbulent seas, sheltering a small pool of stagnant waters. It is the job of progressives to use the, relative, calm that this to come up with better ideas.

'The Yellow Tide isn't what it seems: The neoliberal centre has depended upon abstention and prevails amid disinterest'; in The Alternative; 10 July 2017.

'Macron and Popularity: The President of France has yet to win a sceptical public back over to the political process'; in The Alternative; 4 September 2017.

'German Elections: Angela Merkel will be the stern, bleak but sturdy breakwater people accept amidst interminable turmoil'; in The Alternative; 21 September 2017.

'Argentina midterms raise the question: What's so funny about compassionate realism?'; in The Alternative; 13 November 2017.

'Italian Left: Upheavals reveal progressive cross-section - struggle between pro-European current and rejection of neoliberalism. Can they be reconciled?'; in The Alternative; 11 December 2017.

IV. Seven Years of Tory Government

Photograph: Theresa May in Estonia in September 2017, by Arno Mikkor/EU2017EE (License)

It seemed that when Theresa May took over, she was at least willing to acknowledge that raw austerity thinking was hurting rather than helping. She voiced her belief in the Unionism of Joseph Chamberlain and promised a shared society - social harmony with a square deal for those who mucked in.

There has been little evidence of it in policy and the facts tell a sorry story about the state of Britain. While the government scapegoats anyone it can find, lives are becoming precarious and uncertain. Vulnerable people are squeezed of their benefits and poverty, including child poverty, is rising.

Poverty, real despair and destitution, has returned to visibility on the streets of the Britain. Only this week, in the run up to Christmas, are exposes being run on just how widespread poverty is - even among the working people Tories call the 'deserving'.

A fundamental component of the social contract has been broken by the Conservatives. Even with their heinous rhetoric towards the poor, that tries to draw lines between the deserving and undeserving, they at least maintain the semblance of offering a square deal in return for work. So where is it?

Work is precarious and poorly paid. Homes are expensive and even renting is getting out of reach. Prices of even basic goods are rising faster than wages. Personal debts are getting higher. The poor - those considered by Tories deserving and undeserving alike - are paying a heavy toll for realisation of the Conservative vision. Where is the fair deal?

'Unionism: What is Mrs May pitching?'; in The Alternative; 16 January 2017.

'Conservative's callous attitude to disability benefits underlines the reasons to embrace principles behind universal welfare'; in The Alternative; 27 February 2017.

'Asylum distribution scandal less about immigration and more about inequality'; in The Alternative; 10 April 2017.

'Pay Cap: Hammond focus on 'overpaid' public sector workers is just a distraction from Tories failing those in private sector'; in The Alternative; 17 July 2017.

'The reality of austerity Britain: work and life are now poor, precarious and uncertain'; in The Alternative; 23 October 2017.

'Affordable Housing: That seven years of government was nearly reduced to a bitter meme reflects disappointment with Conservative broken promises'; in The Alternative; 27 November 2017.

'The government social mobility commission resigns in protest at lack of progress on 75th anniversary of the Beveridge Report'; in The Alternative; 4 December 2017.

V. Little Victories

Changing things for the better, in the long run will not be the result of grandstanding. It will be hard fought and hard won, by thousands of people on a thousand issues, little victories that add up to a much bigger sense of momentum.

At times, the forces arrayed against progress can seem overwhelming. But for progressives, it's how things have always been. All we can do is pitch in. Start small. Begin by making the little differences that are within our reach.

There have been small victories in 2017. For instance, in Barcelona the municipal government began fining energy companies for cutting off the supply to vulnerable households. It's a small change. But it could make a practical difference and in communities across Europe, there will be stories like this. Little actions that, together, can build into a bigger change of the tide.

At the end of our "The Alternative Year" for 2016, we said that the lesson for 2017 was that social progressives remain the majority, their ideas can win, can engage and can empower. 2017 was a step forward on that road. Let's hope 2018 sees these truths lead to breakthroughs and, as ever, The Alternative be back in the New Year doing the best we can.

'Little Victories: Tackling energy costs would be a small win with big consequences'; in The Alternative; 21 August 2017.

'World on Fire: This week just shows how important empowered local government and international cooperation really are'; in The Alternative; 14 August 2017.

To be 'progressive' is to be hopeful, but progress won't happen by itself: first, the Left has to reach out and connect

Politics returns to Westminster from recess today to a social atmosphere, in Britain and elsewhere, that has become toxic with the noxious fumes spewed by bitterly divided sectarian factions.

Westminster returns from its latest recess today, to a political mood that has rarely been more toxic. Last night's American Presidential debate captured well the noxious fumes, unconstrained by borders or languages, that have poisoned the political atmosphere (Krugman, 2016).

Ignorance and anger abound, and, what's worse, they're being exploited. In the UK, the Conservative Party Conference set official policy at a new low over the weekend when it proposed forcing companies to make open lists of foreign born workers (BBC, 2016; Syal, 2016).

Instead of abolishing ignorance with education and facts - instead of diffusing anger and bringing calm - instead of reasonableness - anger is being inflamed and ignorance reinforced. Politics has lost a sense of reasonableness.

Harsh rhetoric has driven out decency and moderation. Compromise and consensus seem further away than ever. From France to the United States, the political arena has been reduced to a vague political class circling the wagons to see off opponents stoking ignorance and anger to advance their agendas.

All the while, important matters are rendered impossible to address by the partisan impasse created by opposing outrages flung across wide gulfs of understanding between deeply entrenched factions. Whether Europe or America, people need access to affordable healthcare, affordable housing and affordable energy - and all of it stable and sustainable.

For progressives - whether radical or moderate - decency, reasonableness and respect for a plurality of voices aught to be at the heart of any method that pursues those objectives. So for those who cherish these things, the rise of narrow aggressive sectarianism has made politics in 2016 difficult to navigate and hard to bear.

But the only way is forward, and the only way forward is to reach out. At the Compass Progressive Alliance event, journalist John Harris spoke with passion about the people in the abandoned North who voted for Brexit. He said that:

"These are places characterised by fear. Yes, a fear of immigration and the idea that it might make opportunities even more scarce and wages even lower and put more pressure on already way overstretched services. But underlying this all is a very, very cold, frightening really, fear of the future. A fear, when you talk to people, even of tomorrow and next week.

Please, let's not think about the vast majority of the people I've talked about, who voted Leave, as stupid or deluded or bigoted and hateful... If you haven't got a progressive politics which speaks to places which embody the inequality we all fight against, its not worthy of the name."

Before progressives can reach out, they need to understand what it is that they themselves want, and why - and they need to understand what that will mean for the lives and livelihoods of the least well off. And if these two understandings cannot be completely reconciled, work has to begin on a meaningful compromise, on an inclusive next step.

To be progressive is to be hopeful - to believe in human progress, to believe that all people are capable of self-improvement. But it won't occur on its own. It requires defeating neglect with care & listening, ignorance with education & encouragement, despair with hope & opportunity. The norm is adversarial politics that divides to rule. The progressive alternative has to reach for something better.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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