Chancellor Hammond begins constructing the Tories framing for their budget

Chancellor Philip Hammond took to the stage at the Conservative Party conference to tell his party that they had to make the case of capitalism - and must first and foremost always be the party of business.

On the one hand, this was the latest barrage in a war of words within the Conservative ranks - torn by Brexit and the deep reservations of the business community. On the other, it's also laying the groundwork for the budget.

Hammond told the conference that the party couldn't afford to be seen as the party of the status quo. The Chancellor trailed the possibility of some tax rises to increase spending, but warned against trying to match Labour penny-for-penny.

We've heard this before.

The budget is coming up and the party delivering it are positioning their pitch, delivering up framing devices for the media to use in the coming weeks. For the Tories, they cannot afford to lose control of the message.

In recent months, even senior ministers have been defying the government with a whole barrage of comments to the media. It's making PMQs a whole lot easier for Corbyn and forcing No 10 and No 11 to waste their time running around putting out fires.

For instance, when the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) felt the need to express it's dismay about Brexit - and the danger of leaving the EU without a deal - a former government Brexit minister labelled them a 'grave menace' to the UK's prospects.

That's not a good look for a party that sees itself as the true representative of business. No wonder the Chancellor is calling for the party to get back on message. But there's more.

The Chancellor is also dropping little hints that there might be some tax rises - though these aren't yet more than hints - with an eye to some slight increases in spending.

Hammond finally loosened some of the purse strings this year, with a slight relaxing of public sector pay restrictions. But they were only very slightly relaxed and spending measures in the last budget were far below the kind of intervention for which the UK economy is crying out.

The consensus on the economy - and on Brexit - seems to be moving away from the Conservatives. Conceding the possibility of a spending increase lays the groundwork for framing the measures Hammond will announce on budget day.

In previous budgets, Hammond has talked up restricted spending and paying down the deficit only to deliver up, at times uncosted, spending increases - even if only small ones. The order of the day was austerity, but spending was needed.

Now, the consensus is shifting towards much larger public investment than Conservatives are prepared to meet. And so the Chancellor is preparing the ground to present the next budget as one that will deliver responsible spending.

Yet behind the narrative, there is little reason to expect anything but more of the same from the Treasury. Brexit is a hinderance and while the deficit has been reined in, the debt has ballooned under the Conservatives.

And who is going to be happy with Tories raising taxes? The last time Hammond tried to make a major tax adjustment, he had to withdraw his self-employed National Insurance fix within a week of presenting it.

In politics, the next best thing to delivering policies in line with the consensus is to get every believing that you're doing just that - without having to go to the trouble of spending the money. Expect this narrative to build through October.

Church and State: Archbishop leads Church of England into newly interventionist stance

In the past fortnight, the Archbishop Justin Welby has adopted a particularly outspoken stance. Unusually for the Church of England in recent times, Welby has taken a series of - very public - interventions in mainstream politics.

The trend was kicked off with the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report on economic justice, which called for greater public intervention and higher taxes on the rich, of which Welby was both a signatory and public advocate.

Next the Archbishop took the stage during the Trade Union Congress 150th anniversary conference, to give a speech in which he compared Jesus to trade unionists, favourably, and likened the mission of trade unions and Christians.

And then, finally, Welby announced that the Church was looking to financially intervene - the Church holding numerous major financial investment in a considerable portfolio - in the collapse of Wonga, a major pay day lender, in order to protect those with debts from being preyed upon.

As might be expected, these interventions have raised eyebrows and annoyed people on all sides of the political spectrum - from the The Guardian to The Telegraph. On the one hand a line was drawn between addressing spiritual need and addressing economic hardship, and which the Church of England should be concerning itself with. On the other hand it was felt that Welby had waded in with too crude and analysis. And there were, of course, the criticisms of the Church's own stake in Amazon - itself accused of workers rights violations and poor working conditions.

So what kind of active role can the Church play?

For secularists in Europe, there was a long fight to get the institutional powers, including the churches, out of the public business. In Britain, however, that was more muted struggle, as the Church largely stepped back in time with the Crown.

But the Anglican Church remains a State Church which still has a stake in political power and seats in the House of Lords - and an undemocratic say in political decisions. Then there is the issue of public funding for the Church's listed buildings.

In all, that makes for a complicated position from which to intervene in public life. As a kind of independent social enterprise, there is absolutely a role the Church could play - much as any other charity or civic body should have the right, and perhaps the responsibility, to speak up and contribute to the public discourse.

But the Church is not independent and that does need to be carefully weighed and considered.

For progressives, there is a dilemma when progressive ideas receive the support of a big establishment body. It is nice to hear that alternative ideas have made their way into the halls of power. But the establishment remains an impediment.

Achieving progressive change, pushing for an alternative, means at some point winning over the establishment. But eventually even the reformed establishment will need to be overhauled as well - and the State Church is about as establishment as you can get.

The Northern Powerhouse is a smoke-and-mirrors sales pitch to sell the North and it's assets. The North needs something real.

Photograph: Northern Rail train at Manchester Oxford Road by Mikey. (License) (Cropped)

The chaos caused by the mess Northern Rail has made of it's timetables, has led to commentators calling into question how committed the government really is to the vaunted Northern Powerhouse - it's plan to rejuvenate the North.

Perhaps this mess would have been containable for the government, if it wasn't for the fact that the collapse of the rail network in the North comes not in isolation, but on the back of big promises that been ever further downgraded until they have been all but scrapped.

Tory ministers had pledged major upgrades and major new links. But the big pledges were watered down. Last summer, the transport minister announced that Electrification for the North were cancelled, even as he confirmed more investment in London.

And the ambitions of the TransPennine railway upgrades have been severely contracted - originally pitched as work from Liverpool to Newcastle, the latest focus is just on speeding up links between Bradford, Leeds and Manchester.

Even in the face of the current crisis, the Transport Secretary has been reluctant to talk punitively of how the rail services are being run - even as they are effectively curtailed, cut down to something approximate to an emergency schedule.

It isn't hard to see why the Northern Powerhouse now looks to have been all smoke and mirrors.

Part of the problem is that it was. In essence, the government plan for devolution was constructed around a branding exercise - the "Northern Powerhouse", the "Midland's Engine" - the semantics of which give away the broader aim of gearing the regions towards serving the corporate interests of UK PLC.

In practice, devolution reflected Conservative interests. It cut money from local services, only to return it, in part, through the Metro Mayors - executive figures, alienated from local government and accountability - whose role seems mostly intended to spend the funds on easing the way for business.

The focus was on building a framework, an infrastructure, that will encourage inward investment into a transport hub that would have most Northerners at most an hour away from most major Northern cities and their employment opportunities.

But the plan has also effectively cut local people out of the loop - developing plans for them, to impose on them. And the focus is still on the cities, and not post-industrial towns, where people have been left feeling abandoned.

Recently speaking at a Manchester Business School event on the Northern Powerhouse, Vince Cable delved into how the Powerhouse plans that he and George Osborne developed unfolded.

Cable said that the Northern Powerhouse was supposed to achieve two things: balance out the lure of London and address previous failures to get people and jobs in the same place - which he referred to as the "work to the workers, or workers to the work" dilemma. Transport would be key to Powerhouse's "workers to the work" approach.

Cable argued that efforts were however undermined by budget cuts - the Liberal Democrat said that he protested cuts to capital spending, and that the local government minister failed to protect local government budgets.

The result was a collection of cities, still poorly connected, that have become more vibrant and dynamic, but are still surrounded by impoverished suburbs - already stripped of opportunities, now cut off and drowning amid cuts.

In these conditions, of course, any investment for the North is welcome. And needed. But is tailoring the whole region purely for business the right way to go about it?

The Conservatives have sought to rebrand the North and prepare it's assets - including Northerners themselves, presented as a pool of workers and customers within easy reach and ready to scramble - for sale. Regional devolution becomes a sales pitch, all show and no substance.

But where are Northerners themselves fitting into this? People in the North are struggling to make ordinary journey's to work, that they really can't afford to lose. With competition for jobs so overwhelming, expensive journeys and cancellations are a direct threat to the ability of the lowest earners to get by.

There's only so much that an influx of business investors and new jobs could fix - even job security would unlikely be improved if the amount of work available better matched the demand for employment, such is the direction working conditions are headed in.

The North need more that is rooted there. Affordable housing. Affordable and reliable public transport. Career opportunities for the least well off, and least skilled, with the longevity and security around which to build a life.

Was any of this ever on the cards with the Northern Powerhouse?

The North needs public investment in public infrastructure and work deeply rooted in it's own communities - the means to make use of it's own resources. Achieving that from the outside, from distant Westminster, would be hard.

But from well organised and funded local government, taking seriously civic engagement, giving people a real voice and involvement? In that there is hope.

Industrial Strategy: May government needs to match it's words with public investment if it wants to unlock missions potential

When Theresa May took over the leadership of the Conservative Party, she heralded a change of approach. There has been a lot of talk of government being willing to get more involved - on May's part, expressed in her insistence on restoring the Unionist part of the party's legacy, including invoking Joseph Chamberlain and a more activist government.

The issuing of an industrial strategy was seen as a statement of intent - an act of intervention that broke with the pro-business, laissez faire brand of 'liberal conservatism' of her predecessors David Cameron and George Osborne.

However, follow through has been limited. So too has money. Once published, the government's strategy looked less about shaping markets and supporting innovators, and more about propping up Britain's failing industries with deals and deregulation.

Theresa May's latest step was to reference the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IPPR), who along with it's director Mariana Mazzucato have been pressing hard for a reshaping of how we understand the role of government in innovation. But her warm words toward the potential of strategic missions will mean nothing without the funding to match.

Mazzucato's work has argued, the state can be the risk taking pioneer - a role expected of the private sector, but which it is never willing to fulfil. By funding R&D, by offering long term, stable public investment, government can open up and shape entirely new markets.

But it can't do this without money - at either end. Projects need investment and support to be there from the start and need the private sector not be able to simply walk away with unlimited potential earnings at the end, with no restitution for the public role. Big ideas should fund new big ideas.

Theresa May's government, however, has yet to be willing to match big words with big funding. Today's speech was no different. There was a lot of praise for public institutions that engage in research, but little mention for how they have been strangled of funding.

May set out her four missions - within four 'grand challenges' facing Britain taken from the Industrial Strategy - and praised the potential of missions to drive innovation forward. But that was the extent of it.

Both the IPPR and the thinktank OECD have argued that increased public investment, and the infrastructure to implement it like a National Investment Bank, is a golden opportunity that the UK is not taking advantage of - despite Britain investing well below 3% of GDP.

Without funding, potential will remain unexplored. Mission statements represent step one in a coordinated approach. The Prime Minister herself acknowledged that progress is born from collaboration and cooperation. There needs to be a lot more of it, and something more: coordination.

Theresa May is committing to the big visions/big speeches aspect of the call for strategic thinking. Will the government wake up and start to put in place the rest of the infrastructure needed to maximise the potential that can be unlocked by long term strategic thinking?

Budget 2017: Hammond gets a second attempt at Budget 2017, but will he act?

Photograph: NATO Summit Wales 2014 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (License) (Cropped)

On Wednesday, Chancellor Philip Hammond will present his second Budget of 2017. It has been trailed with promises of doing more. But the big question is whether any of the measures will be enough.

Between the growth of wages being anaemic, price rises eating away at households and the private sector not stimulating any positive movement by holding back from investment, it's being argued that Hammond has cornered himself against his own fiscal rules.

The government has made big promises - or at least big announcements, with little that is tangible behind them. The governing reality has frequently been the denial of the existence of a crisis, making excuses or tinkering around the edges.

Consider the big pledges Hammond has made on housing. The Chancellor has refused much needed additional funding, so tinkering measures - such as adjusting stamp duty or loosening restrictions on councils borrowing to build homes - are expected to carry the burden of getting the government to 300,000 new homes a year.

That will mean achieving the completion of around 100,000 extra homes, each year, to reach the target. Which makes it relevant to note that this is, of course, the same pledge that hasn't been met over the last seven years - at times struggling to reach 100,000 at all, never mind an extra 100,000.

These kind of promises, made over and again only to be missed, serve to undermine future pledges to do more. So too, do gaffes like Philip Hammond's Mitt Romney -esque announcement on Sunday that there are no unemployed people (there are).

It hurts the government too, that funding is denied where it is asked for by services, but is magically pulled out of thin air to solve the latest Conservative political crisis - a billion to secure a DUP-Con deal, for example.

The denials, excuses and tinkering extend to other areas. The NHS is expected to be denied the £4 billion in extra funding it's chief has demanded and the existence of a healthcare crisis has been refused.

These attitudes, these tinkering measures, point towards Hammond's approach to the last Budget, which responded to big challenges with a 'steady as she goes' attitude, spending in the millions not the billions.

There are questions still ahead, however, and people who remain vulnerable. What tinkering will help those women, particularly young women, suffering from period poverty? How will tinkering, with cautious suggestions of reducing waiting times, deal with welfare debt traps?

Universal Credit, in the midst of a disastrous rollout, is exacerbating problems - like mounting rental arrears and the simple fact of more than a month without a means on which to live - that are entangled with all areas of life for the most vulnerable.

While the government may be more focused on avoiding any further embarrassments, of which it has had a string lately, by avoiding any backtracks and climbdowns - such as the major reversal on self-employed National Insurance changes back in the spring.

But now is not the time for 'little c' conservatism. Change will perhaps undermine the Conservative position, ever talking of the chaos Labour will unleash by deviating from their fiscal restrictions.

But the Tories failure to match their rhetoric with reality is a party affair. The wellbeing of the people has to come before the wellbeing of the party. It is time to act.

While the government will want to clear up its messy year of Finance Bills with an orderly status quo Budget, it needs to be bolder and start investing

Next month is Chancellor Philip Hammond's first Autumn Budget. Yet the pomp for the event might be diminished by the fact that the previous finance bill will only just reach it's third reading this Tuesday.

The Chancellor's Spring Budget had been one for pluggling holes. There were Reliefs for those affected by business rate changes. A tax rise for the self-employed (on which he later u-turned). And there was spending - in the millions rather than billions - across key areas like health and social care, construction and education.

All of these came as the clearance of the debt and deficit, and restoration of growth - the long term promises of the Conservatives - remained a long way from being a achieved.

With the truncated Parliamentary session, the Finance Bill reappeared in the Summer once the new MPs took their seats. It has a been a messy and confusing year that will have left many in confusion as to what is and isn't in the Treasury's plans.

The first obstacle the government must navigate is the amendments to the Finance Bill. Labour and Cooperative backbencher Stella Creasy put forward a series of amendments that press the government to action on tax evasion and the exploitative gains made by those corporations who engaged in PFI, private-public investment schemes under Blair and Brown.

These are yet more subjects on which the Tories are divided. And Labour pressure, with Conservative backbench support has ensured that changes will need to be made to the Universal Credit rollout come the Autumn Budget. 

That will have to mean another government U-turn - a term that is coming to be the lasting testament to how ineffective Conservative government has been. They promised stability and only produce confusion.

To that end, the instincts of Hammond and the government will surely be for this messy year of Finance Bills to be tied off with a clean, efficient budget that gets everyone on the same page. To resist change. Status quo may well be the order of the day.

And yet, action is needed. Globalisation continues to reek havoc on communities, as outside of the rich bubbles were technology and advantage and money clusters, investment is dire.

As Mariana Mazzucato stresses, the big private players do not take risks and will not redress this balance themselves. The state needs to invest and create markets, to be the pioneer that the private sector simply isn't.

The 2017 budget has to tackle the lack of opportunities, the need for innovative new industry with the training to staff them, and the cost of living that suppresses and excludes so many. Government can only achieve these things if the public sector steps out in front and takes the lead.

Labour and the Basic Income: To make automation work for people, first the relationships between people and society, work and welfare, must be reframed

To tackle the problems of the future, first we need to rethink our approach to work and welfare. Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

In the passed few weeks, the Labour Party has been talking up it's determination to make technological advances work for ordinary people, rather than disenfranchise them.

For the party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the focus has been on the workplace. Corbyn has raised the question of how to use cooperative collective ownership of businesses by workers to put automation in the hands of people - rather than let automation be their replacement in the hands of their bosses.

Meanwhile, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has focused on the state role. McDonnell, talking at a Manchester anti-austerity event, spoke of a renewed drive for public investment as the first step to anchoring technology to people and their interests.

It was left to the Labour National Youth Conference to contribute the third integral component, with the future of the Labour Party backing a motion in support of the universal basic income.

The motion acknowledged both the problems with Britain's welfare system and the concerns for the future being raised by the rise of automation. To answer these, the LNYC motion presented the basic income.

The basic income is a universal form of welfare, a payment received - with very little bureaucracy - by all citizens. It is designed to cover the basic essentials of life, so as to end poverty and it's coercive power over how people choose to live.

Labour usually falls in with the same basic conceit, shared by most right wing liberal groups, social democrats and worker's parties: that life begins and ends with work - or rather, with wage labour. That work of this sort is a fundamental component and an axiom in the building of any social model.

Work, to 'earn' the right to live in exchange, is treated as a value. As a moral component essential to any social contract. But for progressives, this cannot be the last word.

If we are to have true social progress, we must start first with a base of no poverty and no homelessness. We must begin with the right to live. If we care about choice, about liberty and justice, we must not let coercion remain the starting point for engaging with society.

For the Labour Party in particular, embrace of that wage labour conceit verges on hypocrisy - the party of workers buying into the 'moral value' of 'working for a living'.

There has not been nearly enough scepticism of it, or recognition that it is a value of limited scope. Restricted to the specific benefits it delivers within a specific social system. A system in which even certain forms of work are prioritised above others, and were these forms of work are made nearly mandatory.

Right now there is a crisis in welfare - but not the way the Conservatives think. The crisis in welfare is one of dignity. Conservative cuts have strangled Britain's social security safety net.

That has left vulnerable people at the hands of an exploitative market and put through probing, demoralising, assessments by organisations with weak ethical codes and goals that run counter to the wellbeing of people who desperately need support.

If Labour are really going to reform this country, to tackle these kinds of injustice, they first need to get the foundations right. By no means is basic income a panacea. But it is a fairer and less coercive starting point for a society.

As more and more work becomes automated, as paid work becomes more scarce, we need that fairer starting point as a basis upon which to build a new kind of relationship between people and society - one that acknowledges, from the start, their basic right to live.

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

Photograph: 43207 Departs Leeds by Joshua Brown (License)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pay Cap: Hammond focus on 'overpaid' public sector workers is just a distraction from Tories failing those in private sector

Photograph: NATO Summit Wales 2014 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (License) (Cropped)

After a month of being pummelled over the issue, the Chancellor Philip Hammond tried to reframe the issue of public sector pay cap debate. The core of Hammond's approach was to draw a comparison.

That comparison says that workers in the public sector have it good compared to what those in the private sector were dealing with. Don't be fooled. The Tory angle on public sector pay is a distraction. One that covers for the party's failure to deliver for private sector workers.

In the private sector, low pay and precarity prevail. Working poverty is a reality in 2017.

And the Tories response is to using poor conditions in the private sector to justify undermining conditions in the public sector. And, in time, be sure that pitting workers against one another in envy will be turned back to the further diminishing of the conditions of those in the private sector.

The Conservatives do continue to speak of these restraints on pay, and low pay, as if they are temporary. A part of a restructuring process. But their intended solutions stink of permanence or a lack of vision that narrows their view to piecemeal policy solutions.

For instance, when Justine Greening, the Education Minister, addressed a social mobility conference. She told them that the government's plan was to tailor education towards giving people the high-level skills they needed to achieve their own advancement.

She promised a meritocracy. A system that rewarded hard work with advancement.

But that pledge is belied by the economy under the Tories. Yes, unemployment is down according to statistics (with some glaring flaws). But it isn't a coincidence that unemployment is down while self-employment, second jobs and precarity are all on the rise.

It is something that can be seen clearest in those places where Thatcher's dismantlement of the public sector industries hit hardest. Having skills and the will to work hard isn't enough. Social mobility begins with money. With huge, long term investment.

It isn't enough to pursue personal empowerment, expanding knowledge and skills, if they're are rendered impotent by their environment. Putting achievement down to personal work ethic is an evasion. An excuse not to reform. There can be no piecemeal solutions.

Only holistic, joined up approaches will make a difference. Only coordinating trade unions and worker's rights, a universal welfare settlement that counters precarity, and tackling the cost of living - and many other aspects - will address the deep problems in Britain.

And the Conservatives that have shown this is not, and will not, be their approach. To them, it appears, the struggle - held at bay by 'dependence creating' community support - carries a moral worth.

The world of work is changing. Perhaps even making towards its end. For progressives, an ideology that praises an anxious, desperate struggle for being a test of moral character is not a safe framework for ushering in that future.

It is even less so in the hands of a party that excuses how it has failed private sector workers by stirring up discontent with public sector workers - and who wish to further deconstruct safety nets even as working poverty spreads still in 2017.

Hammond's distraction just papers over the cracks. Punitive action against public sector workers does nothing to improve the conditions in the private sector. The problems of the day call for progressive solutions, with long term investment backing efforts to fight anxiety and build far more life security into working life.

General Election 2017 - Plaid Cymru and Wales: Poor, fractured and ignored, Wales needs a new and radical alternative

Plaid Cymru want to pick up the baton from Labour, but Wales needs a much more radical revival.

Wales is poor, fractured and ignored. To get to the bottom of the needs of the country, it's necessary to start by accepting that. The next step is to accept that very little has been done to address the first step.

The fault for that doesn't fall only on Labour. Since the party spent thirteen years in government at Westminster, and in office as the government of Wales for the last eighteen, it is unsurprising that Tories see Wales as Labour's weak(est) spot.

But the Conservatives have little to offer now and have done little for Wales in the past - other than shut down the last primary industry upon which the country had depended, when they closed the coal mines.

Through three eras of Westminster centralisation - one Labour, two Conservative - Wales has been left with an economy painfully dependent upon public sector employment and its remaining industries are in a perilous state.

Steel in South Wales is struggling to stay afloat against the sudden flood caused by China's mass dumping of its huge stocks of steel onto markets. The scrambling efforts of Conservative ministers and Labour MPs to find a way to secure jobs bought time for Welsh steel.

This desperate scramble shouldn't be necessary. But so little attention has been paid to Wales that it has fallen into dependence: on a narrow few industries, on public funding, on EU funding - it was in fact among the larger recipients of Europe's Regional Development Funds.

Yet even these few things are at risk. The established parties just keep papering over the cracks. The reality is that Wales needs a new party.

Plaid Cymru

Plaid Cymru would very much like voters to see them as just that. But the trouble is, that they're not.

At the core of their manifesto is a commitment to protecting funding and increasing investment, to be issued from Cardiff rather than Westminster, within the context of defending Welsh sovereignty. It's a vaguely nationalist, but otherwise ordinary, pitch for twentieth century social democracy.

Now. Properly implemented, there is plenty that social democrats could achieve for Wales. From fresh funding, to supporting new industries, these are essential projects that only the public body capable of providing.

Investment in infrastructure, in rail and road, in telecomms and broadband, and in new homes; supporting small businesses with public contracts, reformed business rates and a Welsh Development Bank; caring for people with more compassionate welfare and better funded healthcare.

These policies are all progressive priorities and all necessary to boosting Britain's economy out of its doldrums. But they're all just focused on making the best of the status quo - even with a little more devolution.

The problem for Plaid Cymru are that they're caught between fighting their long battle to pull Wales out of Labour's grip and fending off Tory efforts to to take advantage of Labour's, seemingly, ebbing strength.

The party are also affected by being close enough to power in Wales to play it safe. Its an outcome for the party's internal historical struggle, between nationalism and conservatism on the one hand, and a Left-wing community socialism upon the other.

The outcome of the struggle was a Centre/Centre-Left party of social democrats, comfortable with public intervention - much the same as Labour, just with its policies filtered through the lens of national identity.

The party matches the progressive parties at Westminster in their commitments. But where is the rebirth that Wales sorely needs?

Rebalancing Wales

Wales is a country whose political bonds are breaking It is split geographically and economically between South and North, between just two concentrations of people with a dearth of infrastructure and wealth lying between them.

In important ways, the situation of Wales reflect that of Western Europe, Europe and the West as a whole - rural versus urban, towns versus cities, richer versus poorer, migration & concentration, the centres becoming intolerable and the fringes being abandoned.

Politics in Wales hasn't helped. How deeply Labour has embedded itself in communities is a huge impediment to progress. At the local elections, there were many independents that made life difficult for Corbyn's Labour. But beneath that simpler narrative was a more complicated one, of Labour versus unofficial Labour.

That situation is a problem, because Wales right now needs less Westminster and more grassroots. It needs an Ada Colau more than it needs a Jeremy Corbyn.

Plaid Cymru should be better positioned that any other party in Wales to offer some truly radical alternatives. Among the party's founders was DJ Davies, also a founding member of Welsh Labour, an industrialist and economist who believed in the economics of co-operation and putting control in the hands of workers.

In their current manifesto, the part that comes closest to a project for rebirth is "Putting energy into our environment". Their plans, to support a national electric car infrastructure, green energy tidal lagoons and decentralised public energy, strike a theme of industry reborn under community ownership that thrusts towards the heart of what Wales needs. But it gets too little focus.

A New Mentality

Wales needs a new mentality, based on a radical devolution to the local level - to reengage people with the power and funds to rebuild their communities. But it can't be just urban municipalism.

It needs a movement that can give towns, both urban and rural, back into the hands of their communities and reinvigorate civic life - a locally focused, municipal-agrarian movement that can be brave and rethink how we approach rural life and make it sustainable in the future.

A movement that is prepared to imagine new ways to build the bonds between communities. That builds a sense of common identity by building the bonds between communities, that builds a sense of country by building a country.

Wales needs a brave new vision. A revival. Yet nobody is truly offering one. As it stands, fresh polls suggest Corbyn's Labour may make it through it's dark Welsh night. It doesn't deserve to, but New Labour's cynical adage remains true: there still isn't really an alternative.

General Election 2017 - The Budget: Progressive optimism vs Tory pessimism

In the general election campaign so far, there's a determination on the Right to spread the idea that their own plans are sensible and that their opponent's are chaotic and don't add up. But that's a crudely simplistic narrative and it comes with a couple of main assumptions that need to be broken through.

On the first assumption: none of the six main parties in England, Wales and Scotland are calling for a drastic overhaul to Britain's economic system. On the second: most economic systems work on their own terms. The sums will add up, whoever is in government. The biggest difference between progressive and conservative versions is their contrasting optimism and pessimism.

While conservatives, and progressives, will try to make the management of the budget a question of competence, or a question of right and wrong answers, those are not the primary questions facing voters. The real question to consider first, is: what are you trying to achieve?

How Ideology affects Economics

All approaches to the economy are ideological: they propose a set of steps to follow, with an intended outcome - an intentional attempt at shaping society to maximise certain behaviours and to minimise others.

When looking at the pitches made by progressives and conservatives, there are two elements you should consider, one for each of the two main categories of public spending - Current and Capital.

For clarity: Current spending is the day-to-day spending on the departmental budgets, historically offset against government revenue. Capital spending is long term infrastructure investment, usually funded by government borrowing.

On Current spending, you need to consider the question of intervention vs laissez faire: do you consider government action in any given policy area to be helping or interfering?

On Capital spending, you need to consider whether to invest in the future or tackle public debt: do you consider public debt or out-of-date technology and buildings for schools, hospitals, or roads and rails for businesses, the bigger burden on the future?

These two questions are deeply connected.

How entwined they are can be illustrated by the long term plan pursued by the Tories. Planning to 'balance' the budget by having both Current and Capital spending offset by revenue, severely limits how much the government can do in the present and for the future. Even more so as they pursue a huge reduction in the proportion of Britain's GDP, the country's gross wealth, the government is spending.

Now, borrowing to fund Current spending, on the day to day department costs, would theoretically be adding to the public debt at the expense of the future (hence the Tories popular refrain about not burdening our children). But Labour - whether you take the vision for the treasury as assembled by Brown, Balls or McDonnell - has not and does not intend to do that.

Under Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the intention has been - from at least the leaderships of John Smith and Paddy Ashdown - to follow a Keynesian approach: to balance just Current spending against tax revenues, thereby not accumulating public debt to pay for the needs of the present.

This approach does, however, leave Capital spending to be funded by borrowing.

The reasoning behind this is that the longer term Capital spending behaves much differently to Current spending. For a government, borrowing is cheap and the added value created by using it for long term investment is huge - so much so that the actual cost of borrowing is ultimately offset by the increased economic growth that results, and the rise in tax revenue that follows.

How to fund investment

The progressive view of these budget questions has a particular focus on Capital spending, refusing the simplistic calculation that public debt equals a burden on the future. Public debts, within reason and where they result from investment in the future, are largely harmless.

But the negative impact of poor infrastructure, on every area of society, could be disastrous. Just look at the mess that resulted from outdated operating systems on NHS computers. But the same point extends to more mundane situations: old and crumbling school buildings, potholed and traffic strewn roads, ports with insufficient capacity, a telecommunications network that doesn't keep up with the needs of people and businesses.

There are, of course, always attempts at being clever in order to reduce borrowing for Capital projects, even when they aren't covered by tax revenues. New Labour tried something new, expanding on plans they inherited to seek out private investors for its controversial and now infamous 'Private Finance Initiatives', as a way to fund Capital spending without adding to the public debt.

The New Labour plan for private-funded public investment built hospitals - but the private sector expects returns. The PFIs left those institutions with the expectation to deliver astronomical returns on those investments - some £300bn all told - and private benefactors continue to receive interest payments from hospital trusts in the hundreds of millions.

In a way, New Labour's approach resembles the Coalition plan for funding higher education - shifting a public debt, weighing on the Current budget, onto citizens as private debt. In a stroke, a chunk of Current spending and public debt was privatised.

But like the burdens that were shifted onto the backs of hospital trusts, the treasury saw a clever accounting trick,  not the social impact of burdensome debt - though at least more limitations were put in place to protect students than the hospital trusts received with PFIs. In either case, the financial burden ends up on the public books anyway.

The Conservatives plan was to oppose borrowing and fund both Current and Capital only with tax revenues. From a progressive view this was reckless, as it would result in one of two outcomes: it would mean slashing spending on people's wellbeing in the present, while still having them pay tax to fund Capital projects that will never bear fruit for them, or it would mean slashing both to endlessly pay off mostly harmless debt.

The underlying motivations for conservatives to pursue this path is as simple as 'faith' in the market. A belief that private schemes are better than public action - seeing public action as interference that just distorts outcomes. Instead of taking the advantage of scale provided by the collective public option, where resources are pooled to maximise their use, conservatives prefer personal private schemes of insurance to pay for services.

How the government finances stand

The overriding aim of this privatising conservative mentality is to fight against 'dependence'. But to pursue that low tax, low interference, approach, that promotes private action, is not compatible with maintaining well funded public services. At some point, something will have to give. To emphasise the point, consider how the public finances stand after seven years of Tory government.

Current spending stands this past year at around £720 billion to £740 billion in revenue, while Capital spending sits at around £80 billion. As the Tories combine Current and Capital spending to calculate the deficit, the public debt increased by about £59 billion.

That will mean, in the coming years - helped perhaps if revenues rise due to economic recovery or growth - 'balancing' the budget will still require a combination of tax rises and budget cuts, to both Capital and Current spending, amounting to over £60 billion a year - and perhaps more, if the aim is to produce a surplus with which to pay down the public debt.

We know that some £22 billion is to come from the NHS, through the finding of 'savings'. Another £3 billion is coming from schools, thanks to recent funding changes. More will come from the welfare freeze. There is clearly an intention to clear some of the cost of social care off the public books by making middle class homeowners pay with their assets. But that still leaves a lot of cuts.

As for the Liberal Democrat and Labour plans, both are actually fairly similar and neither are that tremendously radical. In fact, they're downright sensibly Keynesian. Both intend to balance the Current, day-to-day departmental, spending against tax revenues - with modest tax rises, mostly on the rich, making more room for manoeuvre.

And here is something interesting. On the measure of balancing the Current budget: it's already balanced. In fact it's in surplus. By some £20 billion. It is projected to be in surplus by about the same amount next year. The previous year the Current budget was only £3 billion in deficit. If the job was to rebalance government spending and revenue, the job is nearly three years done.

With their commitments fully costed, either Labour or the Lib Dems would come into government with a very positive outlook on the public finances - seeing the public books as being in a healthy state. The positivity of either of these parties would alone be a drastic turn around from the doomsaying Tories, who promise nothing but ever more cuts.

It is remarkable the affect that optimism and positivity alone can have in economics, particularly in contrast to the Tories doom and gloom and neverending warnings. But the renewed public investment, called for by all progressive parties, could provide a huge long term boost to Britain. From the mass building of new homes to long term support for innovative new industries - particularly in green energy - there would be a lot to be optimistic about.

How we frame debt matters

As for the deficit and debt? Well, how these are drawn up may have to change when the Tories are eventually ousted, because the way we frame these matters. Conservatives have been very successful at getting into circulation the idea that fiscal credibility means opposing public debt. Progressives must counter that narrative by reframing the ideas.

If the value added by Capital spending vastly outweighs its cost - thus removing it as a factor in balancing a budget - it might well be worth starting to calculate it separately from the deficit and debt which results from the Current budget. That means separating out public debt into two categories: productive Capital debt and unproductive deficit debt.

The progressive aim will be responsibility with productive Capital debt and credibility in tackling and avoiding the unproductive Current deficits and debt. Consider: In the three years between 2015 and 2018, there will have been a Current budget surplus of £47bn. The deficit in that period, that Tories use to justify austerity, is the result of £233bn in Capital spending - investment in long term projects.

That means, at the end of that three year period, around 12% of our total public debt is just from that productive long term investment. When you consider the long term, positive impact of that Capital spending, it makes the public debt a lot less intimidating. It also resets priorities.

How we move forward

To be a progressive is to be an optimist - to be believe that people have the power to change things for the better. While government spending is not the be-all-end-all mechanism for that, progressives argue that it has an important role to play and is currently being poorly utilised.

There are huge challenges to face and most them require sturdy long term commitment. Poverty needs to be addressed with affordable housing and energy, and with compassionate welfare that gets people back on their own feet.

Britain's imbalanced economy needs restructuring around innovative new industries and businesses, spread out across the regions, with green energy power them and the technical skills to run them.

The public sector is able to deliver that long term investment in a way private finance has not yet been able to match. It is part of the solution. The next step is to grasp that idea and to pursue it with positivity and energy. Progress is possible and austerity not inevitable.

The Budget: Hammond's budget all about tweaks - spending headlines mostly in the millions rather than the billions

Philip Hammond delivered his first budget today. Photograph: NATO Summit Wales 2014 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (License) (Cropped)

Philip Hammond looked relaxed, even made jokes, as he delivered his first - and apparently Britain's last - Spring Budget. The Chancellor's budget was one tweaks, all framed as adjustments to increase fairness. He began by summarising current economic trends, noting the highest number of women in employment ever. Growth projections are up slightly, but a projected drop in borrowing is only short term.

The long term economic plan of his predecessor George Osborne, to eliminate the deficit and produce a surplus to whittle away the national debt, was much delayed. Its aims where pushed back again by Hammond today. The promised fiscal surplus now not likely be seen until a long way into the 2020s - at least.

As for spending, the numbers he was pitching were all notably in the millions rather than the billions. £200 million for school repairs. £100 million for A&Es. A few hundred million for devolved administrations. £700m for councils to tackle urban congestion. The one exception appeared to £2 billion for Social Care - yet that was immediately qualified as being spread over three years.

Those spending commitments were companied by big companies seeing Corporation Tax fall again, as planned, to 17%. Perhaps as a counter to the criticism Conservatives have faced for their tax cuts for those at the top end, Hammond did however announce a halving of Director-shareholders' tax-free dividend allowance - noting it as a very generous tax break for investors.

For income taxes and wages that affect the overwhelming majority of people, the Personal Income Tax Allowance and the National Living Wage will both increase, to £11,500 and £7.50 respectively. The Universal Credit taper rate will also be reduced from 65% to 63% for earnings over allowances. Yet the overall positive impact of these is likely to be slim.

It is not surprising then that Jeremy Corbyn attacked the Chancellor's budget as one of "utter complacency". Corbyn painted a picture of people in precarious work - unsure of where they'll find work or what money they may make tomorrow, queueing at food banks and one of a million working households getting housing benefit because working pay doesn't cover the rent - for whom there were few measures.

The Labour leader expressed anger that public servants have still seen no pay rise in seven years, due to the Government's freeze on pay, and that no funding security has been given to the NHS despite there being an obvious crisis, despite the fact that corporations are still going to get their year on year tax cut.

The Chancellor's budget has offered only a range of small spending increases, in a very concise series of measures, and it is hard to see them as sufficient. Analysts, such as Kamal Ahmed at the BBC, have characterised the budget as representing 'pain delayed' - taking advantage of the short term boost that Government finances are experiencing this year.

This is not the start of a public investment led drive to build a path out of austerity. With the debt and deficit still hanging heavily over Britain, these feel like stop-gap measures to assuage certain political pressures in the present, and to ease the way to the further austerity that waits ahead.

Autumn Statement: Austerity hasn't worked, yet Chancellor's response is much smaller than Britain's big problems demand

House building pledge typifies problems with Chancellor Philip Hammond's Autumn Statement - it's too little action to tackle a much bigger problem. Photograph: Regency Houses from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

John McDonnell, the Labour Shadow Chancellor, described the Autumn Statement as a budget that does not make up for six wasted years. That after all of the sacrifice, over more than half a decade, despite continuous failures, austerity will continue.

That is not an unfair assessment. For this statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond had to juggle the policy inheritance from George Osborne, meeting the promise of Theresa May to help those just getting by, and the economic pressures that are depressing growth, disincentivising investment and pushing up debt.

The result has been a budget statement that sticks close to the status quo, with only some token, already scheduled, easing measures: the personal allowance advancing to £11,500, the 'national' living wage to £7.50, and the welfare withdrawal taper rate down by just two pence in the pound.

The Chancellor's focus remains upon the broader economy, not least with tax cuts continuing for big business as Corporation Tax falls again to 17%. The promise that these subsidies, and policies like the productivity fund, make to people is that if they help the economy, that prosperity will extend to them.

Yet many of the Chancellor's announcements were effectively cancelled out by the facts. He lauded the fact that the UK has its highest employment and lowest unemployment, with a labour market recovery serving everyone. Yet much of the new work has already been reported as being unstable, insecure and precarious.

Despite confirming plans to increase public investment, that comes on the back of years of delayed, stalled or unfunded infrastructure investment plans that have been shifted from announcement to announcement. Meanwhile economic growth is depressed, private investment remains low and debt is still rising.

And on house building, a necessary step to tackling the damaging housing crisis, Hammond has said he will lead a step change in progress on getting them built. Yet his commitment extended to just 40,000 new homes - a long way short of the hundreds of thousands needed, let alone tackle prices and rents escalating beyond what could be credibly referred to as affordable.

While Conservative spokespeople on the cycling news coverage are keen to deflect their failures onto the uncertain circumstances of the times, the reality is that six years of fiscally conservative government has led to a rise in borrowing and a vast increase, even a doubling, of the national debt. Austerity hasn't worked.

Those 'just about managing', as the Tory government labels them, have made huge sacrifices - with less welfare support, with their frontline services embattled, with work that is more precarious for lower pay. But after six years, there is still no pay off. There is no easing. There is still no succour for falling living standards.

If the Government is serious about helping the poorest, the most vulnerable, those most distant from opportunities and living precarious lives, it needs an alternative plan. Fiscal discipline, bringing down debts to reduce the cost of servicing them, is important. But no major economy is working well enough to provide prosperity for the people they're supposed to serve without help from public funds.

Progressives have to construct an alternative plan, that can return more prosperity to the communities that have made big sacrifices to achieve it, but have been alienated from the rewards by austerity. That means getting on with the work that has been put off, like building homes and infrastructure, tackling the cartels that lock communities out of the product of their own resources, with ideas like community energy co-ops, and doing more to support the most vulnerable with healthcare, social care and welfare.

Autumn Statement Preview: Hammond looks likely to ease austerity, but progressives have to believe we can do more

What awaits Britain under a new Chancellor? Photograph: Pound Coins from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

On Wednesday, Chancellor Philip Hammond will present the Autumn Statement, the half-year update on the Government's progress towards their budget targets.

Under previous Chancellors Gordon Brown and George Osborne, the Autumn Statement became virtually a second budget, a second for the Government to manage and tweak the country's finances. Osborne in particular liked to tinker at every opportunity, adjusting targets again and again, an announcing new surprise policies to keep political opponents off balance.

The new Chancellor, Philip Hammond, as befits his reputation as 'dull', has suggested he'd like the Autumn event to go back to being just a rudimentary update, rather than a full blown budget adjustment. And considering the economic situation, that might not be a terrible idea.

An economy runs principally on the basis of confidence and Hammond has everyone to reassure: Brexiters and 48ers; the banks; businesses big and small, and workers. Whatever advantage Osborne's constant surprises afforded him in the political arena, would only have been yet another element of volatility in an already volatile time.

As well as provide assurance of a steady hand, Hammond must also find a way to satisfy his party's extreme right-wing - while, for sake of the appearance of competence, avoiding the complete repudiation of the actions of the previous Conservative ministry. That means maintaining at least token continuity with his predecessor's insistence upon tackling the deficit at the expense of front line services.

If those matters weren't hard enough to juggle, Hammond must also find a way to meet the new commitments made by the new Prime Minister Theresa May. That means, at the least, finding some way to slow down austerity just enough to help those who are 'just getting by'.

In times of high drama, a period of calm, anchored in fiscal stability and dullness, with no unpredictable moves and longer term planning - that actually sticks to a long term economic plan - would usually be a thing very welcome, for any economy. If that is what Hammond brings, it signals, hopefully, a return  to managing fiscal matters with a long term view, rather than with short term grandstanding better fitting a corporate boardroom.

However, the new Chancellor doesn't have the luxury of simply postponing a little of austerity programme and holding station. To that effect, Hammond has already deprioritised his predecessor's constantly shifting deficit targets and proposed a small increase in spending to a improve some roads, with May herself adding today the promise of a little more research and development funding. These steps are clearly an effort to show concerns - that withdrawing too much Government money, too quickly, will only make straightened times leaner - have been acknowledged.

Yet Hammond is rightfully under pressure from the Left to do more. John McDonnell, the Labour Shadow Chancellor, has also called for the undoing of tax breaks for the richest that were delivered by George Osborne, eve as frontline services and local councils were subjected to stringent budget restrictions.

With the money saved from reversing those measures, McDonnell has called for dropping the next round of welfare cuts, planned out by the treasury under Osborne - that will hit hardest precisely those who the Prime Minister lately pledged to protect: those 'just getting by'.

Socially and economically, the times have become hard and uncertain, and disproportionately for the most vulnerable - for women, minorities, people with disabilities and the working poor. And each of these groups are exposed to a range of risks, pressures and dangers by declining prosperity and rising desperation, as people turn inwards and shield themselves with hostility towards those who should be their neighbours.

While stability for the Conservatives may stop at settling down jittery markets, progressives want the Government to look further afield: to help calm the fears of ordinary people. Hammond's promises of infrastructure spending and pausing austerity are a start. Yet McDonnell isn't wrong to question the record of the Tories on delivery - Osborne made bigger promises of infrastructure spending, that might have helped stimulate the economy if they had ever seen the light of day.

For progressives, the time is long overdue for a budget with more spending commitments: on research and investment, to help stimulate the economy, creating jobs in the immediate present and to lay the foundation for more down the line; on the critical shortfalls in the NHS and social care budgets; on ending, and even reversing, cuts to welfare, to help people during hard times; and on building many desperately need homes.

All of those commitments are expensive and neither debt nor deficit can be completely ignored. But the present status quo simply is not stable. Worrying  about public debts, themselves fairly stable, weighing on the future as a tax burden is madness when the poor, just to get by, struggle under mounting insecure private debts.

And the Government, on the public behalf, is in the strongest position to help. Even just reversing tax cuts and subsidies for rich corporations and individuals - before you even get to the matter of how cheap interest is on Government borrowing - would go a long way to paying for what's needed.

Stability and reassurance are needed. But the Government must act first to create stability, because right now there is desperation and precariousness bordering on disaster. Progressives have to believe that Hammond can and should do more, before he can declare the ship steady, the waters calm and a course plotted for the harsh waters awaiting Britain outside of the European Union.

Labour Leadership Contest: Corbyn's year in charge has already changed Labour's policy debate, but will it be enough to heal the rift?

Corbyn speaking, just a month after his election, to a crowd of ten thousand people - inside and outside - at Manchester Cathedral, for a Communication Workers Union event.

The Labour leadership contest got under way in earnest on Thursday as Jeremy Corbyn launched his campaign. Evoking the memory of Beveridge, in his speech he promised to lead Labour towards ending the 'five greats evils' of our times (BBC, 2016): inequality, neglect, prejudice, insecurity and discrimination.

Having seen off Angela Eagle in the nominations race, Owen Smith has also stepped up his campaign (Asthana & Elgot, 2016). Unlike Corbyn, who has a - not really of his own making - hostile relationship with the media, Owen Smith is actively courting the media, making TV appearance after TV appearance to increase his exposure amongst audiences who probably don't know who he is.

Smith's key line through these appearances has been to try and present himself as able to be the intermediary between the radical membership and the more pragmatic party. He has promised to be as radical as Corbyn, but more competent at making the practical pitch to the wider country (BBC, 2016{2}).

Owen Smith, in the event of his campaign being victorious, has even pitched a job for Corbyn, offering him the position of Party President - though the proposition was rejected by Corbyn as being the equivalent to a 'Director of Football' (BBC, 2016{3}).

The launch of Corbyn's leadership defence had the appearance of an act of defiance (Sparrow, 2016). Affording no time to his detractors and opponents, he focussed instead on making a Beveridge-esque promise to combat the five great evils and called for Labour MPs to take the hand of friendship, get behind the party and work together.

In fact, the Labour leadership campaign may yet be beneficial for Corbyn. It might well give Corbyn the platform to calmly propose and discuss policy that his leadership so far failed to - conducted as it has been under a concessionless, constant barrage, of media negativity (Cammaert, 2016).

However, his support will be under strain, potentially squeezed by a candidate like Smith - if he can put his message across - with the polls showing trade union members have become less enthusiastic about Corbyn's leadership (MacAskill, 2016).

Smith has already made some promises. The set piece of which was a promise to boost public investment, with a £200bn New Deal for Britain (Edwards, 2016). The proposal has already enthused some Labour MPs, such as Louise Haigh who said she was excited to see anti-austerity turned into practical proposals.

There was a bit of oneupmanship to the campaign though, when a day later Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell announced a £500bn investment plan (Pope, 2016). McDonnell's plan included a National Investment Bank, to have regional sub-sects, for instance a Bank of the North, to manage investment to local needs.

Whatever the variations, both candidates are though confirming support for ending austerity with a big increase in public investment - a move that sits well with what the experts are arguing that the British economy sorely needs to move forward (Blanchflower, 2016; Elliott, 2016).

That alignment between Labour's Left and Right, with economists, is a good sign for the Left, signalling that thinking has shifted away from austerity - making conditions perhaps somewhat easier for those on the Left friendly to public spending.

It might also be a sign that Corbyn supporters, and those on the Left wing of the party that have long felt ignored, even an Owen Smith win in the leadership contest will be far from a defeat to the hated Blairites. Corbyn and his supporters have changed the party and Smith's approach has proved that - they can't ignore the Left anymore.

Contained within the pitch Owen Smith is making is an acknowledgement of the impact that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters, who put him into the leadership, have had on the party. Their values cannot be ignored.

And yet, tensions remain high. Claims of abuse have come from both sides, of which there is plenty, but those valid claims are undermined at times by claims of abuse by thin-skinned public figures who, earnestly or cynically, mistake criticism for something less legitimate (BBC, 2016{4}).

The question that provokes is whether the breach had already been widened too much. Though concessions are being made in terms of tone and policy, if Corbyn doesn't retain the leadership - and even if he does - the hostility of the party's establishment to the Left still really doesn't make it look, however, like the long term future of the Corbynistas, and their well wishers, is in the Labour Party.

Proportional representation cannot come soon enough.