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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The collapse of Carillion has thrown open the door to Municipalism, but there is work to be done to make it a success

Photograph: Future site of the Library of Birmingham, from 2009, by Elliott Brown (License) (Cropped)

The collapse of government outsourcing giant Carillion has opened a door for critique of how the neoliberal approach to giving out services contracts to the private sector is handled - and mishandled.

With profits subsidised, companies mismanaged to threaten jobs and small businesses, and responsibility for pension funds all too frequently abdicated, that is to be expected.

But beneath and within that critique, is the opening of a much deeper line of thinking. It has opened an avenue for thinking up a new progressive direction - it has become a case study for assembling so far disparate thought and theories.

Voices from all across the progressive wing have been chipping in with pieces of a larger theme that's starting to take shape.

Jeremy Corbyn has followed Carillion - and the defeat of Clare Kober and her Public-Private development scheme - by launch a commitment to the renewal of municipal socialism. He has called for councils to bring services back in house and make regeneration about people first, not speculators.

on Newsnight, economist Mariana Mazzucato argued that Britain's outsourcing partnerships operate in a parasitic ecosystem, where profits are siphoned out of services, but the risk is left with the public. That we need to set out new terms, to define a what a good partnership looks like.

Meanwhile, writing a new column for Open Democracy, journalist Paul Mason began by talking about how neoliberalism had disassembled social mobility along with community. Mason acknowledged that nationalisation can't be done the way it used to be, but that neither can outsourcing. Central government needs to shape models and strategise, rather than dominate.

The example that people keep turning to, for a new model, is Preston. In the past few decades, Preston suffered through, ultimately failing, private-backed regeneration plans. After the failure, the council in Preston responded by doing something incredible.

Preston council tried to use it's own resources, and the funding tools at it's disposal, to stimulate it's own local economy - rather than trusting to more inward private investment and the precarious jobs it brings.

In part courtesy of the efforts of Michael Brown, the council used it's procurement budget to invest in local businesses, it supported local co-ops, and it fought off pop-up high street pay day lenders by backing a credit union.

In the era of government outsourcing giants going under - Carillion, and now Capita the latest to be fighting to not go the same way - rethinking how government budgets are spent, and who they subsidise, is a question that people are finally asking.

So what are these and other thrusts driving at?

Municipalism. A return to communities having an empowered stake in their own local government and local services. Co-operatives, small community-based businesses, community-owned water, energy, homes and rail. Restoring a sense of local purpose that might restore some sense of local hope.

The really interesting thing, though, is what comes next. If efforts to relocalise, to reestablish community, are successful, then influence, money and subsidy are going to be in the power of local municipal politicians. This is so much closer to putting power in people's hands.

But it isn't the end of the battle. Without oversight, without transparency and democratic accountability, local government can be - and at times, is - even harder to keep an eye on and hold to account. If we are going to realise the potential of local government, we need the democracy and oversight to match.

In simple terms, addressing that has two elements: the political and the journalistic.

For the political, reengagement is the first big task. Local election turnout is abysmal. There isn't really any other way to put it. Without people engaging and voting on local matters, there is no more empowerment locally than nationally.

Alongside the collapse in local community life, globalisation has also ushered in the near elimination of local journalism. Local newspapers - like the Coventry Telegraph, that once employed six hundred people - are long gone. The starting point for building oversight will be in finding a way to revitalising the local press.

These are just two starters on a list of issues to tackle. Of which, economically, 'hollowing out' may be among the largest. After decades of sending outside experience, it is no great surprise to find no expertise left inside - or the infrastructure needed to support it.

There is hope in municipalism. A real empowerment to be had. A chance for communities to rebuild, to recover their self-confidence. That has to be worth supporting. To achieve those ends, progressives of all stripes need to throw themselves into preparing the ground.

Carillion: When private service providers keep proving so inept and unethical, how can we be asked to back privatisation?

Photograph: Future site of the Library of Birmingham, from 2009, by Elliott Brown (License) (Cropped)

Carillion, a services behemoth, has collapsed. With it, it takes billions in government contracts and puts tens of thousands of jobs at risk. The construction and services company accrued £1.5bn in debt - of which £600m was owed to it's pension fund.

Fortunately, despite Carillion's own recklessness, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has stepped in to assure workers that their pensions will be protected - despite the complete failure of the company to meet it's commitments to workers.

However, numerous government projects, and smaller businesses to whom Carillion outsourced work, face an uncertain future. A result of what David Lammy described as, "privatise profits when things go well and nationalise risks so the taxpayer picks up the bill when things go wrong".

This government has tried to convince us of, or slip past us, a privatisations agenda, trusting private companies in the public sector. But how cane we back privatisation, when private sector providers keep proving so inept and unethical?

Carillion is not the only major private concern, even in the past year, to go bust and to do so revealing a massive pensions deficit - having taken profits for executive pay, but left workers' futures in peril, in what must surely be a major ethical breach.

When the steel industry nearly collapsed with the Tata Steel decision to close it's plants, workers' pensions were a huge block on a deal to save the industry. Incoming buyers did not want to take on responsibility for the pensions.

The unwillingness of private sector companies to take up their responsibilities in this case left workers with steel pensions in uncertain circumstances, where they have been prey to financial advice groups - now under investigation over their predatory behaviour.

The thing is, the government isn't just pushing privatisation for services, but for things like social insurance and pensions. It wants us all to do these things on personal, private terms, rather than in big collective government funds.

Yet, how can we trust the government's much vaunted workplace pensions scheme, when private companies treat workers' pensions as the first thing to drop when their isn't enough money for every commitment the company has made.

And what about Virgin? A global corporation that bitterly scraps for government contracts, even to the point of suing commissioners when they don't get them - suing parts of a cherished health service in financial distress. It was later awarded a huge contract, to much public outcry.

The government must now move to salvage what it can of Carillion, nationalising projects and departments to keep their vital work going and keep people employed. But what shape that takes is yet to be seen.

The speculation is that the government will continue to it's neoliberal trend of nationalising failure and debt, while returning the profitable parts to the private sector for executives to enjoy the benefits.

It would be refreshing to see something. Like the private sector picking up the tab for it's colossal failure? Yeah, right. Perhaps less fanciful would be consolidating parts of Carillion into a cooperative, run by it's workers?

As a cooperative, the still functional, still profitable parts could serve workers. The profits would deliver dividends for the workers, that would be of direct benefit their communities.

Whatever the government chooses to do, take note. This is one of those 'true colours' moments, where the rhetoric is paper transparently thin and the tropes are well known, enough to allow us to see what the governing party really values.

General Election 2017 - Green Manifesto: Openness, compassion and cooperation

The Greens' manifesto must be read as what MPs will stand up for, rather than expect to implement.

At a modest launch, the Green Party put forward its manifesto for General Election 2017. The low-key event aligns well with the party's realistically focused, targeted election campaign.

The party's co-leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jon Bartley, have been at the forefront of calls for a Progressive Alliance and local Greens have worked to unite support behind the best placed anti-Tory candidates across the country.

Their own efforts will focus on a few constituencies, to concentrate on re-electing Lucas in Brighton Pavillion and putting some new Green MPs alongside her - such as Natalie Bennett in Sheffield Central, Molly Scott Cato in Bristol West and Vix Lowthion in the Isle of Wight.

So this manifesto must be understood in that context: these are the things that Greens will put on the agenda, that they will speak up for, fight for and vote in Parliament to defend. Openness and cooperation will be key to that effort.

Openness and cooperation appeared in Caroline Lucas' introductory speech, along with compassion, as the values that the Greens will protect. That theme runs through the pledges the party makes in its manifesto.

The headline pledges for the Greens are their commitment to a basic income trial scheme, a shorter working week and a £10 minimum wage. At the core, there is a lot of crossover with Labour: the living wage, higher tax for the wealthy and support for "small businesses, co-operatives and mutuals".

The party, of course, ranks addressing the environment among its highest priorities. There are commitments to fund a public work programme of home insulation to make energy use more efficient, to end fossil fuel subsidies and replace them with investment in renewables and community owned energy, and to protect green spaces.

There is also crossover with Labour here - who, in particular, have called for local public energy companies, with a focus on renewable energy, to compete with the big energy corporations to drive down energy prices.

The Liberal Democrats also share commitments here, to rolling out insulation, to invest in green energy and, with Labour also, to tackle air pollution and support new energy companies coming in and take on the "Big 6" - with a focus on how these efforts could all boost the economy and be the start of a job-creating clean industry in Britain.

These stand in stark contrast to the Conservatives, whose almost only reference to the environment was to offer its support to energy derived from shale gas - otherwise known by its more controversial name of fracking.

On health, the Greens continue their commitment to fighting against privatisation in, and of, healthcare services. They renew their commitment to passing their NHS Reinstatement Bill that would even restore dental services to public funding.

Their focus on support for matching the status of mental health to physical health matches with the Lib Dems and Labour, along with calling for increasing funding for the NHS and social care.

On other public services, the Greens go further than Labour, calling for energy, water, rail, bus and mail services to all be brought back into public ownership - and for an increase to local government funding to help authorities provide good quality services.

There are crossovers on education as well. Scrapping tuition fees has been committed to by the Greens and Labour - and still has support among Lib Dems. Restoring student grants is a Green and Lib Dem priority.

Restoring young people's benefits is a shared goal across the progressive parties. The Greens stand out on welfare, however, for their headline commitment to the basic income and to rolling out a trial scheme.

The Green Party commitments on house building align with all of the progressive parties and specifically matches Labour's commitment to 500,000 new social rent homes over the next five years. Along with the Lib Dems there are commitments to take action on empty homes and to scrap the Bedroom Tax.

Long shared with the Liberal Democrats, and being newly considered by the Labour Party, there is support for the much needed switch to proportional representation - to make votes matter, by making the votes people cast more clearly represented in how the seats in Parliament are distributed.

And not least there are commitments to the Human Rights Act and to the UK's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights - the Tory attitude to which has made this a high priority concern for liberals and human rights and civil liberties groups.

The Greens have only modest electoral ambitions for themselves. But in the face of the threat of a landslide Tory majority they have stressed the need for a Progressive Alliance - for progressive parties to come together to defend their shared values.

While they may be the most humble of mainstream progressive parties, their approach is grasping best the bigger picture. A Tory landslide would be a disaster - for the poorest, for transparency and accountability, for the values of openness, compassion and co-operation.

Whether a supporter of Labour or the Liberal Democrats, if the Greens are the best placed to defeat the Tories in a constituency, there is plenty of crossover to make voting Green tactically an easy decision.

The same extends in the other direction - Greens can find plenty of policies that align with their priorities in the manifestos of the Lib Dems and Labour. There is a real progressive consensus on many issues.

But it is only through cooperation and working together, by voting tactically and campaigning positively in collaboration with the best placed candidates, that progressives can fend off the latest round of Tory assaults on the rights, liberties and wellbeing of the most vulnerable people in Britain.

Social Security: Winter is coming and the Government appears content to leave the ramparts unguarded

A homeless encampment in Manchester last year, one of the signs of the growing strain on Britain's social security safety net. People are falling through the system into poverty.

The first signs are appearing of the hard times ahead, forecast by the Autumn Statement. It has been less than a week since the Government announced its budget priorities and already it is under pressure over the gaps in social security created by the lower funding brought by six years of austerity.

People are falling through the cracks because, from social care to free school meals, the safety net is becoming porous. In some areas, people don't know they have a right to support and in others there simply aren't places for them in programmes.

At the root of these issues is funding. In their quixotic crusade to tackle public spending, that they sees as an unnecessary waste, the Conservatives have chipped, slashed and removed whole sections of Britain's social security safety net.

As Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has pointed out, the Conservatives have slashed spending even where spending would ultimately save far more money in the long run than cuts will. The onward rumbling housing crisis has proven particularly expensive for the Government.

As a result of a failure to build new social housing, and the determined sell-off of present stock, far more is spent on Housing Benefit to keep people in more expensive, and often less satisfactory, private rented accommodation.

Investing funds in social housing could, in fact, drastically reduce the housing benefit bill, by perhaps billions, all while tackling one of Britain's a major infrastructural problem. The key that the Conservative seem to be missing is the vital role to be played by smart spending.

The Conservatives have certainly tried to portray themselves as embracing the idea of smart spending. When it comes to funds, the Government has been keen to say that it has extended certain tax raising powers to local government to cover the increased cost of social care. And the Prime Minister continues to repeat the '£10bn for the NHS' figure.

Yet their claims are belied by reality. The £10bn figure has been debunked and its continued use criticised. The extra funding for social care, the Social Care Precept - that lets local government keep a 2% greater share council tax receipts - has been dismissed as wholly inadequate. The Chancellor pledge in invest in infrastructure resulted in just 40,000 new homes being promised.

There is even talk today of the pension age being pushed back again. Even as the living standards of all workers, especially the most vulnerable, continue to fall, the Government still whittles away at the public sector and turns to the market.

Winter is coming and the Government appears content to leave the ramparts unguarded - believing perhaps that people should secure their own fences in a market for social security. That is a plan that progressives should comprehensively reject.

Prioritising opportunities for the affluent and thrusting over security for the vulnerable isn't just unethical and economically unsound, its also a social disaster waiting to happen.

It is the very thing that feeds the desperation, that in turn feeds the far right. The neoliberalism of the Centre-Right is laying the shaky foundations of its own collapse.

So what does that leave for progressives to do? Yanis Varoufakis has put it the simplest: first, stabilise and save what we can of value in the present system, and second, develop a real, working and unifying alternative. The costs of letting the house of cards fall - personally, socially, economically - are just far too high to do otherwise.

Caroline Lucas' National Health Service Bill seeks to restore the NHS to its reassuring place in the UK's social security safety net

Almost perfectly timed to follow on the tail of the latest round of Junior Doctors Strikes, Caroline Lucas' backbench National Health Service Bill has its second reading in the Commons today (Friday 11th).

The aim of the bill is to rein in, what has been called, the undemocratic backdoor privatisation of the NHS. The bill seeks to undo internal competition introduced in 1991 and reintroduce local health boards, to streamline the identification of the services needed and to provide them (Lucas, 2016).

Public backing for the NHS remains high, and the bill has received broad support from celebrities and other publicly notable persons (The Guardian, 2016). The good feeling towards the institution can be seen in the still high support for the junior doctors in the ongoing contract dispute between the British Medical Association, the BMA, and Secretary of Health Jeremy Hunt (ITV, 2016; Stone, 2016).

The junior doctors strikes themselves seem almost to be symptomatic of the problems to be found in the NHS' inner workings. Staff have been stretched thin across shifts for years (The Telegraph, 2012).

After a number of strikes, negotiations completely broke down, with Jeremy Hunt attempting to suggest that the doctor's union, the BMA, was trying to hold the government to ransom (Ashmore, 2016). Treating unionised medical professionals like they're mutineers at least doesn't seem to have helped Hunt's standing with the public.

Yet the decision by the Health Secretary to impose the government's newly designed contracts (Tran & Campbell, 2016), without further negotiation or bilateral acceptance, was a potentially damaging but possibly effective escalation of the dispute - effectively calling out doctors in the expectation of grumbling compliance.

For doctors are left with little alternative, besides interminable strikes, than flight - literally abroad, or figuratively, to the private sector. With the NHS in crisis in recent years, this has already been increasingly the case (El Sheika, 2016; Johnson, 2016).

Yet it has also been suggested that Hunt, and others who are actually in favour of a privatised system of healthcare, are unlikely to shed a tear for staff flying to the private sector (Stone, 2016). In fact there are some who see these events as part of a long chain, a long and concerted effort to discredit the NHS in order to pave the way for privatisation (El Gingihy, 2015).

Supporters of the NHS Bill, which is being debated and voted on in parliament today, see the privatisation agenda as both undemocratic and also contrary to the facts. Accusations have been made that the costs of healthcare are being inflated, in all parts of the NHS, by the infiltration of the private sector (Furse, 2016) - completely contrary to the standard narrative of market 'efficiency'.

Caroline Lucas', who is sponsoring the bill, has argued that the virtual army of staff required to manage private contracts is contributing heavily to the growing deficit and debt hanging around the NHS' neck (Lucas, 2016{2}). In fact, it has been pointed to that by the WHO, World Health Organisation, definition, the NHS is all but privatised already (El Gingihy, 2016).

The backbench NHS Bill is an attempt to reverse that direction and keep the institution alive and restore it for the future. The NHS remains an important part of the public safety net that guards against disaster. Alongside future progressive, like the basic income and a shortening of the working day, a free-at-the-point-of-use public healthcare system still has a place in ensuring justice and liberty.

Election 2015: Healthcare, public funding and the future of the NHS

One of the central issues for voters as they cast their ballot in the 2015 UK general election will be the future of the NHS. All the parties have made their pitch, each party setting out their position by juxtaposing it with the plans of their rivals. The trouble is, upon closer inspection, all of the parties are making very similar promises (Triggle, 2015).

The choice between very similar sounding options on 7th May is the product of the development of the NHS over decades. The NHS was established by the Atlee's Labour government in 1948 to be free at point of use and funded by taxation. Based on the report of the liberal William Beveridge, it represented the next step in the reform and modernisation of social welfare begun by the Liberal Party just after the turn of the century.

The free at the point of use principal was soon put to the test. With funding the service proving expensive, it was not long before charges were introduced - beginning with prescription charges. Over the years more costs have been gradually pushed away from the public purse - road accident charges to car insurers, and dental care charges, eye care charges, hospital car parking charges all to the service user.

Toward the end of her time as Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher introduced a new 'internal market' system, where the state would not directly provide the healthcare. Instead it would procure it, on behalf of the service user, from independent hospital trusts that would have to compete to provide the service (Laurance, 2013).

Those changes initiated a direction of travel arguably continued in the Labour Party's embracing of Private Financial Initiatives (PFIs) under Blair and Brown. The benefits of the system to which Labour clung were that it opened up a short term source of funding to get hospitals built (BBC, 2002). But in the long term it has led to a huge build up of debt for hospital trusts, while allowing the private companies to profit massively (Cooper, 2014).

As for the Lib Dems, there has long been a broad party consensus on finding ways to increase choice and to ensure oversight and to devolve power (Brack et al, 2007). That made the Health and Social Care Act 2012 a complicated matter, with strong campaigning opposition to elements of the reform from within the party led by the likes of Dr Evan Harris (Harris, 2012).

Yet even with these ways of extending the means of funding the NHS and trying to find increase in service 'efficiency', the NHS is still falling short and there are fears that it will affect services (Campbell, 2015). There is little belief that Andrew Lansley's reforms have helped to ease the pressures. NHS chief executive Simon Stevens has said that the institution needs an extra £8bn a year to meet an expected £30bn shortfall by 2020 (Baker et al, 2015).

In response, all of the main parties of offered more funding, each with their own priority (Wright & Moodley, 2015).

Labour's primary position has been to distance itself from, first, the coalition's policies, and then, second, from those of New Labour. This means promising to repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and introducing a cap of private profits from NHS contracts (Wintour, 2015). With NHS funding a major issue, Labour have also promised an increase of £2bn by 2016, and a £2.5bn fund for recruiting more nurses, GPs and midwives.

The Conservatives have promised to ringfence healthcare spending to protect it from cuts and to increase the budget by £2bn each year of the next parliament. However, that increase in funding is tempered by Cameron's announcement that his party would also be extending NHS services to full 24 hour coverage (Channel 4, 2015). They also later announced - to criticism of making unfunded pledges - that they would match the £8bn increase called for by the NHS (BBC, 2015).

By contrast to the other two main parties, the Liberal Democrats were initially the only party to pledge to increase NHS funding each year through to 2020 to ensure it will be, in real terms (adjusting for inflation), £8bn more than today - the amount that the NHS has stated is needed. Their main priority will the treatment of mental health, which they would put on parity with physical health and for which they would provide more funding (Perraudin, 2015).

UKIP have once again shown their chameleon-like skill at identifying the most popular mainstream policy and jumping on board - being sure to propose funding the NHS through their usual obsessions (Mason, 2015). However the personal views on the NHS of their leader Nigel Farage have been criticised by Dr John Lamport of the National Health Action Party (Lamport, 2015). He criticised Farage's praise for the Dutch and French style insurance-based system as an expensive doorway to privatisation.

However, despite their differing priorities, the similarities between the main parties and the general direction of travel towards privatisation has, for many, been a long term concern (BBC, 2003). Senior health professionals have criticised the coalition (Boseley, 2015), and others have called for whoever forms the next government to provide the funding that the NHS needs (Baker et al, 2015). These calls come with fears amongst medical professionals that after the election, charges may be introduced for basic NHS services (Campbell, 2015{2}).

Smaller third parties have taken up the fight against this perceived drift into privatisation. The National Health Action Party (NHA) represents a broadly Left-wing vision of rolling back privatisation. The NHA supports 1p rise in tax to pay for an increase of funding of £4.5m a year, phasing out prescription charges and repealing the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (BBC, 2015{2}).

However, regardless of who wins the next election, the closeness of the main parties' policies makes it likely that there will be some sort of cross-party commission to figure out the future of the NHS (Triggle, 2015). That commission will have to face the same questions that the public will at this election: do we want lower taxes or well funded public services? Because trying to have both means stretching those services ever more thinly (Toynbee, 2015).

When considering that question it's worth noting that the UK has comprehensive healthcare for which it spends far less, as a share of GDP, than most other comparable countries (Campbell & Watt, 2014). The NHS also remains an overwhelming popularly supported service (NatCen, 2015). In order to keep that service functioning, we need to understand the choices on offer about its future and to ask ourselves: when the future of the NHS is being debated, what values do we want to be represented and to underwrite its future?