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

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

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

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

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

Opposition scepticism is entirely appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Election 2017 - A hopeful night for progressives: It's time to do opposition right

The provisional results, that give the Conservative-Unionist pact a very slim working majority.

The aim for progressives going into last night was supposed to be damage control. As it happened, they'd gone above and beyond - in fact, as the night went on, matters so very nearly tipped the Conservatives right out of government.

It will be interesting to see as the turnout is broken down to see how much of it came down to tactical voting among progressives - not organised by the parties, but voters themselves taking the lead and making their presence felt.

In the end, progressives had to settle for seeing off the Tory advance - a goal achieved with surprising comfort in the end. It came with the cherry topper of handing Theresa May an embarrassing rejection. She demanded the country unite around her and the country said no.

So much for strong and stable.

Theresa May has lost the Conservative majority and is now left dependent upon Arlene Foster and the Democratic Unionist Party - very recently hit by scandal and criticised over mismanagement in government at Stormont - to form a government.

Despite the Conservatives constant criticism of coalitions and relying on regional parties, Theresa May showed no hesitation in cobbling together a government that relied on the support of a narrowly focused regional party with some extreme views.

While the Conservatives deal with despondency, Labour are in a jubilant mood. Although celebrating and calling this a victory might be a little loose with the truth, it's a clear step forward.

In fact it is plenty enough for Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to be justified in their stance that Labour are right now ready to govern as a minority government. It is a strong and confident stance they need to push and Labour MPs need to echo and reinforce.

You have to wonder if Corbyn and McDonnell always understood that Labour's route back to government would always take two elections. Last night they defied a threat of Tory advance, and revitalised themselves at home in their own seats.

Much criticised from within the party or focusing on boosting the party itself, in its own constituencies and ranks of members first, the strategy paid off. Labour's heartlands remained so and young turned out in droves.

Labour even expanded threateningly into Tory country. They took down junior ministers and established a following in the seats of senior ministers, that ran their incumbents very close and place them well for the next big push.

That will be at the next election. It will be a big moment for Labour. They've placed themselves breathing down the necks of the Conservatives and there will be no excuse next time. The platform is now there to launch Labour are into government.

However, Labour winning an election these days requires more than just Labour wins. It needs Liberal Democrat wins too. Last night the Lib Dems showed that they could win, but their performance was otherwise absurdly erratic.

From the nine seats they began the night with with, the party held four seats, lost five seats and gained eight seats. The Lib Dems also had a number of close calls either way - they really could have ended with anything from eight to eighteen seats.

The party largely held up its share of the vote - likely losing some to tactical voting, while gaining a little too. But the party could have hoped for a lot more and there will be some introspection among liberals in the days to come.

Honestly, considering the party's whole campaign at a distance, it's hard not to see Tim Farron's leadership as being compromised, despite the overall slight improvement in the party's position.

The leadership seemed to misjudge the public mood, unwaveringly focusing it's campaign on Brexit and rerun referendums, when many who the Lib Dems had to pitch to appear to have either gotten passed or not cared about in the first place.

And then there were the blunders Farron himself made, that were just plain ridiculous. No leaders of liberals should find themselves getting stuck with the label of intolerance on questions of support for LGBT and abortion rights.

The party's messy night speaks to the lack of clear message that connects values to policies to people, and resonated with an audience - as if the party simply wasn't sure to who exactly it was pitching it's ideas.

The return of Jo Swinson to the Commons for East Dunbartonshire on a clear majority perhaps presents the Liberal Democrats with a viable alternative leader - a woman, not least, outspoken and capable. All things the Lib Dems need to put at the forefront.

The SNP also had a dramatic night. While it is obviously on the one hand a tactic of media management to play down seat losses as best as possible, it was not unreasonable in this case. There really wasn't anywhere for the SNP to go after they swept Scotland last time out and the monopoly couldn't last.

The drama came from who the Lib Dems lost seats to: the Tories. Before the independence referendum that would have been, nearly, unthinkable. But last night, the Tories pretty much saved their political skins with gains in Scotland.

Their gains brought a particularly sad loss: Angus Robertson has lost his Moray seat. Sadly, Robertson will no longer bring his impressive performances to bear from the opposition benches in the Commons.

The big question going ahead now will be who can maintain their vote share and move forward. On several fronts, the Tories seem to have hit a wall that suggests they've maximised their reach. Labour, in contrast, broke new ground.

For Labour, this is a platform to win from. However, to turn that potential into a reality will depend upon keeping young voters, particularly first time voters, engaged and coming back time and again - and that will mean rewarding their engagement.

Labour also has to make a big pitch to Wales over the next five years. Voters in Wales shielded Labour last night, but the party hasn't really earned it - even with Corbyn's bright new manifesto. It has to start delivering.

There is a progressive majority. Seventeen million voted for the Centre-Left, while fifteen million went for the Right. Yet there is a Conservative government - a Hard Right Blue-Orange Loyalist coalition, no less.

It's mandate and majority are thin. Labour has a platform to fight and overturn that now, but first things first. All of the progressive parties have to get opposition right. There can be no messing around this time.

All progressive parties - Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens - have to start coordinating. And right now. Right from the start. The infighting must stop. The progressives turning fire on each other must stop.

All focus now has to be on holding the government to account, to prevent its Hard Right nature from getting out. On LGBT, on abortion, on human rights, on welfare - there are so many crossovers for progressives were opposition will be needed.

Corbyn's result has restored hope to progressives. It has trammelled the Conservatives. The time to make that count is now. The next election campaign starts now - and this time it'll be a fight progressives can win.

General Election 2017 - SNP and Scotland: To have a wider influence at Westminster, Scottish MPs must bring soft power to bear

Thanks to devolution, Scottish MPs occupy an awkward role at Westminster - dependent upon the soft power of Westminster outside of the reserved questions of foreign policy and defence.

MPs for Scotland, thanks to the devolution of powers, have a very particular role. The few matters still reserved to Westminster are foreign policy and defence, energy and welfare - and with the extension of tax raising powers, even welfare can now be influenced from Holyrood.

So, for those who represent Scottish constituencies, Westminster has become in fact a federal parliament - focused on collective questions of Britain's relationship with the world and how it makes use of its natural resources.

Scottish National Party

Strangely though, the SNP have chosen to release a full manifesto that covers even the devolved matters. Perhaps the opportunity to put across its intentions at Holyrood or pressure to appear comprehensive has forced the party's hand.

On the devolved matters are some major pledges: centred on an £118 billion investment package in public services to counteract Tory cuts impact on Scotland - including investment in the NHS and introducing a new 50p tax rate.

But it's on reserved matters, what the party's MPs will tackle at Westminster, that attention here will focus.

The party has pledged to push for devolution of immigration powers to ensure a fairer immigration policy. The SNP argue that Scotland has different needs to those of the UK as a whole - that free movement of working age immigrants is vital to the economy of Scotland.

The party has also pledged to fight against fight cuts to welfare, treading ground on which even other progressive parties have been timid. Labour have not pledged much and while the Lib Dems pledged a little more, they have not really campaigned on those proposals.

Now, welfare policy will soon be something that can be adjusted and added to in Scotland, but baseline will be set for UK in Westminster. The SNP has promised to fight funding cuts and to raise money to make welfare more generous North of the border.

On foreign policy and defence - including Brexit - the SNP have the advantage of a clear stance. While the party supports EU cooperation, remaining in the Single Market, and ending the use of the Trident nuclear deterrent, there is a not a lot of depth on foreign policy in the area of defence and intervention.

Historically though, the SNP has taken a similar, centrist line to the Liberal Democrats - that the military should be maintained and that interventions should be led by United Nations resolutions, in accordance with international law.

The lack of depth perhaps reflects the question which muddies the waters of the SNP's voice on foreign policy and how much it influences, or should influence, wider UK opinion: if the SNP wishes for Scotland to be independent of the UK, how can it hope to play a leading role in setting the tone of Britain's relationship with the world?

SNP and their opposition

The SNP's opponents have their own stances on foreign policy that might be more clear, for better or worse.

The Tories are now resolved to pursue Brexit, are very clearly prepared to intervene militarily, and are clearly pro-Nuclear deterrent. Opposite to them stand the Liberal Democrats, who are the pro-European party. They want EU cooperation on foreign policy. On other questions though, they tread a tightrope of centrist equivocation.

Labour has also faced being indistinct on some of these big foreign policy questions - though it has been a symptom of being deeply divided internal politics rather than pragmatism.

Despite Jeremy Corbyn's own stances, however, the party has resolved in favour of NATO and in favour of retaining Trident. The party's MPs also rebelled against the party line, following a Hillary Benn speech, to support intervention in Syria.

On foreign policy the SNP are pro-UN, anti-Nuclear weapons, pragmatists, in a field of pragmatists, with independence hanging over their stances. So it is unsurprising that they are trying to distinguish themselves by way of their role at the head of the Scottish Government.

Above all, the SNP are promising to be an anti-Tory party of strong opposition. But for the SNP, as with other parties in Scotland, MPs from Scotland's constituencies will have little voting power on the broad majority of issues.

Soft Power

Defending the party's ability to act as an opposition at Westminster, Nicola Sturgeon praised Angus Robertson - the SNP's Westminster leader - for being the effective voice of opposition at PMQs and raising important issues in key debates. The SNP have also repeatedly stressed that they are prepared to work with other progressive parties at Westminster, to cooperate and collaborate in defending common values that are threatened by Tory policies.

Sturgeon stressed how the SNP had played a pivotal role at Westminster in exposing the issues hidden within Tory policies and forcing Theresa May and David Cameron, and their respective governments, into one U-turn after another.

However, devolution for Scotland has created in fact a two-tier Parliament at Westminster and taken away the hard power, the ability to vote, of Scottish MPs on many issues. With devolved matters, the SNP's accomplishments have to be achieved with soft power. With speeches, by getting press interest on an issue, and then gathering public pressure - and bringing it to bear.

Voters in Scotland should keep this in mind when casting their ballots. Who represents them on foreign policy? On defence? On Brexit? And, who can bring the soft power of public opinion and rhetoric to bear on those issues that fall on the periphery of Scottish jurisdiction?

When it comes down to it, Scottish MPs go to Westminster with a very specific mandate to address collective UK matters of foreign policy, defence and reserved broader economic questions. It is really on these issues that Scottish voters should make their choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Elections: Conservatism is far from dominant in a divided Britain, but people still await an alternative

Yesterday saw local council elections across England and assembly elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, that emphasised how varied the politics of Britain's provinces is becoming.

With so many pressures, on so many parties, from so many directions, the local and assembly elections were always going to be a fraught and complicated affair. As it happens, the changes forced were in small increments and, in broad context, left matters largely as they were (Kuenssberg, 2016).

But the biggest story of the night is really the way in which politics has taken on different shapes in different parts of Britain. In its different provinces, politics is being reshaped to fit provincial rather than British themes (Mason, 2016; Mason, 2015). Old divisions are being broken down, new ones are springing up and some groups are adapting while others are not.

The broad picture showed the Labour Party largely hanging on, with inconvenient losses matched by surprising gains and holds. However Corbyn still finds himself wrestling with the internal contradictions left to him by previous leaders, who failed to solve the fundamental disconnect between the party and its supporters. The Conservatives too managed to broadly hang on and even made the publicity friendly gain of becoming the official opposition to the SNP in the Scottish Parliament.

The Liberal Democrat slump also seemed to have hit bottom, with the party's vote mostly stabilising at about 8%. Yet there were also signs of life, with some gains won on the back of astounding swings of around 10-15% - an increase in supporters in the thousands - that will provide some useful fuel for their #LibDemFightback narrative.

UKIP's night was largely devoted to establishing themselves, securing their bridgeheads rather than breaking new ground. Their results matched 2015 and followed suit by again paying off in second places, and this time with both council seats and seats in Wales' Senedd.

Yet this broad, federal, party picture hides a much more complicated set of movements beneath the surface.

The results in Scotland redrew political lines to reflect the new reality of debate in the country. The SNP, now without a majority but still in position for a strong minority government, have set out Scottish separatism as the movement with the momentum. The Conservatives are the opposition, and Unionism is their opposing force.

In that debate, other issues are being sidelined and with them the other parties. Labour, who are really struggling to distinguish themselves in the separatism-unionism debate, look the most lost. The social democratic Centre-Left have seemingly rallied around the SNP, while the those following the Unionist cause have unsurprisingly gathered about the Conservatives. The principled opposition to the SNP approach to governing, on issues of civil liberties and the environment, has gathered around the Greens and the Lib Dems. That doesn't leave much room for the Labour Party.

The Liberal Democrats night in Scotland lays out their own particularly strange journey. While across Scotland their support seemed to settle to the national average of around 8%, in particular constituencies they won huge victories, even against the SNP, with 15% wings bringing thousands of voters. That was enough to give Will Rennie a constituency seat with a 3500 vote majority in North East Fife, along with gaining Edinburgh Western.

By contrast with Scotland, the election in Wales almost felt like a delayed continuation from the 2015 general election. The Lib Dem vote levelled out at around the 8% margin seen elsewhere, and in Wales, last year, but in this situation that meant Lib Dem seat losses suited to the 2015 slaughter. And yet, party leader Kirsty Williams won her constituency with a 10% swing to increase her majority by thousands of votes.

Meanwhile UKIP gained representation in Wales through the regional list vote, taking seats at the expense of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, thanks to 13% of the vote gained mostly at the expense of Labour. That number reflected their Britain-wide 2015 performance, and seemed to confirm the Senedd election as almost a rebalancing - representation adjusting to match their performance.

In the local council elections in England, Labour lost seats but - again - largely held their ground. The Lib Dems showed more surprising resilience, taking a projected 15% of the national vote share and even an overall gain of more than forty council seats and control of a council. As in Wales, UKIP appear to be rebalancing, losing votes but claiming some council seats, in seeming redress from a year ago. The Conservatives lost almost fifty seats and control of a council, but for a sitting government the results are as undramatic as could be hoped.

That stands in contrast to London. After eight years of Boris Johnson, with Labour struggling, the Conservatives must have thought that this was a clear cut opportunity. Yet it was Sadiq Khan's campaign that has had all the momentum, despite the dirty tricks and negative campaigning of the Conservatives - run not only by Khan's opponent Zac Goldsmith, but endorsed from on high by Conservative leadership (Hattenstone, 2016).

As the dust settled, Sadiq Khan had become the new Mayor of London and Labour hold a commanding position in the London Assembly. Presented as the candidate representing a diverse and inclusive London, his election confirms the stark contrast between the politics of London and the Conservative majority in Southern England won in May 2015.

The sum of these results is to say that Conservatism is far from dominant in the UK because Britain is, beyond the simplistic divisions of Westminster majorities, composed of a number of different provinces over which Conservatives do not hold sway. London is a progressive beacon in the conservative South. Scotland is dominated by a fundamental question of its identity, while Wales seems to be struggling to find its own in a post-industrial world. Across the North, Labour's former heartlands, that post-industrial world has left Labour increasingly locked in a struggle with UKIP for its soul.

The results show conservatism to be an ideology ruling others from outside, at arms reach. But they also suggest that people are still waiting for a real and clear alternative to be put forward - and for someone to stand behind it. At the moment, progressives do not have a clear alternative pitch to offer and they are too divided into factions, and parties seemingly incapable of cooperating.

There are sparks here and there that show a pitch might be formulated in time for the 2020 general election. Support for Proportional representation is widening. There is growing acknowledgement of the need to tackle the housing crisis, including the rental sector. Welfare, inequality, austerity, basic income - these are all showing up on the public radar.

The future of these ideas, of turning them into policies, will require progressives to recognise the necessity for an alliance backing a clear positive alternative. An alliance internally within Labour, an alliance between Labour and other parties, an alliance between different parties in different provinces. Britain is divided, but progressives can do what conservatives can't and unite it behind a common cause.

If Labour is going to compete with the SNP in Scotland, it needs to address its own complicated and confusing politics

Labour have a lot of work to do in Scotland if they are to recover from the landslide defeat that cost Jim Murphy his job. Photograph: Jim Murphy and Eddie Izzard meeting retailers in East Renfrewshire by Scottish Labour (License) (Cropped)

In his speech to the Scottish Labour Party conference, Jeremy Corbyn made clear his intention of facing the SNP head on in Scottish Parliamentary Elections in May (BBC, 2015). Corbyn pulled no punches in the speech, which contained barely veiled criticism of SNP. He referred to Labour as the true democratic socialist party, in both "words and in deeds".

Along with new Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale, the Labour leadership face an undoubtedly uphill task. Even accounting for the 'Corbyn Effect' and 'Corbynmania', the general election in May was only the culmination of years of alienation - during which time the popularity of the SNP soared.

If Corbyn wants to outright defeat the SNP, he has to get to grips with Labour's long term Problems. At the last election, Labour lost support in every direction: they lost their base on the Left and amongst the working class by making those supporters feel abandoned; and they lost amongst their targets on the Right because the Tories convinced voters that their abandonment of the Left was not genuine.

Their unclear, inconsistent, positions - that sought to string the Left along without having to pursue Left policies - only led to alienation.

Ahead of Corbyn and Dugdale is the task of making Labour credible again. But rather than how this is usually interpreted - vis a vis embracing mainstream neoliberalism - the renewed credibility requires consistency: clear beliefs, backed by clear motivations, that support clearly communicated stances and policies.

That means Labour has to be very careful of U-turns and wavering - the choice to delay tax credits cuts rather than to kill them outright (BBC, 2015{2}), or Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's shifting position on George Osborne's fiscal responsibility charter (Perraudin & Wintour, 2015), both being prime examples.

Along with establishing their own position, they also seem determined - if the thinly veiled criticisms from Corbyn's speech tells us anything - to shake the impression people have of the SNP as a true party of the Left.

There certainly are, undoubtedly, some legitimate criticisms to be made with regards to SNP governance (Macwhirter, 2015). And it isn't a departure from reality to suggest that the SNP could be more comfortably described as a broad tent party of the Centre. But the SNP under Nicola Sturgeon is no flash in the pan protest vote, to be undone by the simple bursting of a bubble.

The SNP used disaffection on the Left with Blair and Brown's long rule of Labour to first establish themselves, through Alex Salmond's Scottish minority administration, as a credible party of government. As Labour's credibility sank, the SNP converted that position into a majority in Scotland in 2011 and then a virtual sweep of Scottish seats at Westminster in 2015 under Nicola Sturgeon.

The position of the SNP has been at least a decade in the making. It is a well organised, with visible support that wields distinctive branding and a clear sense of themselves as the opponents of conservatives. Theirs is a formidable position.

If they're to compete, Labour need consistency, clarity and clear communication. Without addressing the complicated and confusing politics with which they alienated supporters as New Labour, they stand little chance of being seen as a credible alternative to the SNP.

Tory government back down on Foxhunting exposes the lie of the stable majority

For now at least, the Foxhunting ban remains. Photograph: Fox Grooming via photopin (license) (cropped)

In response to the SNP making clear that it would opposed a relaxing of the laws on foxhunting, the Conservative government has withdrawn the vote it set on the issue (Mason, 2015). A vote had originally been scheduled for Wednesday (BBC, 2015), with the government accused of attempting to bring back foxhunting by the back door (Mason & Brooks, 2015).

The Conservative response in the media will likely be to cry foul on the SNP involving themselves in 'English affairs' (Mason & Brooks, 2015{2}; Jenkins, 2015). But the reality is that internal division is what has stopped this vote from going ahead - divisions that expose the lie of the stable majority.

With a majority in the Commons, the Conservatives should have been able to pass their 'relaxation' of the law. However they faced opposition from both backbenchers, and even ministers, within their own ranks (Helm, 2015).

Foxhunting is just the latest issue to expose the lie of majority rule, with a fragile Conservative government facing constant risks of internal rebellion. What is particularly notable, is that it is the more moderate Conservatives who are causing them so much trouble.

Under the Coalition, many of the more extreme Tory policies never even saw the light of day. The issues on which moderates are rebelling - including a threatened withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights Convention (Watt, 2015) and misrepresenting Britain's relationship with Europe (May, 2015) - were all options opposed and suppressed by the Liberal Democrats.

In fact, most of the struggles Cameron's Ministry have faced over their first two months in office have, seemingly against expectation (Cowley, 2015), come opposition from their moderate wing. The moderates seem to be working overtime to make up for the absence of a liberal influence in restraining the reactionary Far-Right.

Is it possible that they now feel that they took the Liberal Democrats for granted? Are they maybe beginning to regret the electoral strategy of directly assaulting their former coalition partners?

The compromises of the Coalition served the Conservatives well in allowing them to portray themselves as reasonable and responsible. Foxhunting is one of the issues that could undo all of that very quickly and return the toxicity to the Conservative 'brand' (Platt, 2015; Gosden et al, 2015).

Between the toxic nature of extremism and the internal factional divisions, here, exposed, are the flaws of majority government. Handed a virtual five year dictatorship - as long as they can keep their numbers together - there is nothing but self-restraint to prevent parties veering into their own extreme corners, and alienating the usually large proportion of the population who did not vote them into to power.

That power is on display in the matter of foxhunting, which the Tories apparently plan on returning to again in the autumn, once they have introduced their plans for Evel - English votes for English laws (Mason, 2015). The majority party hasn't gotten its way, so it is changing the rules.

Even if you accept the inequality of majority rule on the basis of 36% of the vote - and less than 25% of all eligible voters - internal divisions afflicting the Conservatives show that the system reflects no unanimity..

With electoral reform there might at least be a more honest exploration of beliefs through smaller parties, than found in squabbling big tents. There would also be hope for governments that would be based on a compromise that is representative of the views of broad parts of society - not simply imposing the will of a loud minority on everyone else.

Cameron's plans for English Votes on English Laws represent Conservative determination not to decentralise power

Photograph: Palace of Westminster from across the river via photopin (license) (cropped)

The Conservative government's plans to introduce English Votes for English Laws where announced today by Chris Grayling, Conservative leader of the Commons (Sparrow, 2015). After a Prime Ministers Questions session yesterday which saw the Prime Minister David Cameron face a barrage of questions from SNP MPs on the matter (BBC, 2015), the Conservatives can not have been expecting a warm reception today.

English Votes for English Laws, under its pretty unfortunate acronym Evel, is a proposal to limit Scottish MPs in their ability to vote on matters that would affect England only, due to those areas having been devolved to the Scottish Parliament (Wintour, 2015).

But what it seems to be, above everything else, is an attempt by Conservatives to forestall Britain's shift towards a federal system, where power would be devolved away from the centre at Westminster - and the more proportional voting systems would likely follow.

Late last year, Cameron promised the devolution of further powers to Scotland, including tax raising powers (Wintour, 2014), but at the same time stressed his intention to pursue the idea that legislation affecting only England should only be voted on by English MPs.

Some, particularly within the SNP, have complained that such a stratification of MPs, with different voting powers on different legislation, would create mounting difficulties (Mason & Perraudin, 2015). Furthermore there has been outrage at how the government is attempting to rush the plans through without the scrutiny of the full parliamentary process (Mason, 2015).

At PMQs, Cameron stressed that his plan for Evel did not involve creating a two-tiered system of MPs, but was the equivalent for England of the devolved decision making already in place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Sparrow, 2015).

That opinion exposes an oddity within the British system. In essence, it labels Westminster as, de facto, the English Parliament, to which the other nations seem to simply be invited to attend when matters affecting them arise.

This determination to maintain this particular political system, forcing answers to constitutional questions to fit within Britain's deeply centralised system, even when they will produce unbalanced ways of handling legislation (The Guardian, 2015) - in this case by handing a veto to English MPs - looks to be a sign of just how uncomfortable the Conservative Party is with the clear changes taking place within the UK's political system.

Instead of embracing positive changes to the British system, for which there is mounting support (Mortimer, 2015), the Conservatives have determined instead to pursue a system that alienates those parts of the country who already have some partial federalism, while trying to rule another 50 million people directly from Westminster.

Embracing federalism, based around the regions and nations of the UK and allowing Westminster to evolve into a federal parliament, would be a much neater approach.

Following a close comparison for Britain, as Canada would be despite its smaller population, federalism would allow power to be devolved neatly to provincial assemblies representing the North, the Midlands, the East, the South and London. These could sit comfortably alongside those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, much as Ontario or Alberta sit alongside the quite vociferously distinct Quebec. By reforming along such lines, the confusing dual-purposing of Westminster might be avoided in the process.

Britain already has a complex multi-level political system, of regions and county councils between Westminster and local authorities, long in need of reform. Streamlining that system along federal lines would be a huge step forward that would ensure that, above all, people have the right to a government representative of them and their distinct provincial needs, while avoiding constitutional snarls that are only likely to lead to more alienation and division.

Building a new progressive opposition will require solidarity and activism, inside and outside of Parliament

The first ten days of David Cameron's new government look like a preview of what we can expect over the next five years. From the moment he resumed his premiership there have been protests against austerity and against his party. The protest group People's Assembly Against Austerity has already scheduled a major protest for June, expected to draw at least 50,000 people, in a show of popular opposition ahead of George Osborne's July budget (Elliott, 2015).

With both of the main, traditional, opposition parties partially incapacitated - through depletion and from finding themselves bereft of leadership - these protests can be seen as an acknowledgement that opposition to the policies of the Conservative's governing majority will have to come through new voices via new means. Even though the Conservative majority is only slim, Tory rebels are most numerous on Far Right issues - which is unhelpful to progressives. That means that the little fights are going to matter all the more (D'Arcy, 2015).

Protests will be one route to challenging the government, though some would disagree. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP for North East Somerset - and one man window to the Parliament of the Nineteenth Century - criticised marchers at a protest in Bristol as anti-democratic (Bristol Post, 2015).

"It's not a protest against government policy, its a protest against the election result, so it is tainted by a lack of acceptance of democracy. I think they may have missed the General Election that took place last week, where the country endorsed the Conservative manifesto. I am all in favour of people's right to protest, I think its a very important right, but people have just voted. A decision has been taken which supported continued austerity."

The trouble is, Rees-Mogg himself is missing an important point. The endorsement of the Conservative manifesto is based on only 37% of voters. 37% is itself a poor enough mandate for a majority, even if it wasn't achieved on a two-thirds turnout. That means less than a quarter of eligible voters chose to 'endorse' the Conservative manifesto.

With Parliamentary opposition weak, protesting the iniquities of the electoral system, and demanding that they be taken into account, is all the more important at this moment. So is trying to make other views heard, like those of the 75% who have been disregarded.

Even if the government mandate and majority had been strong, opposition still plays a tremendously important role in the majoritarian system, scrutinising the government and holding it to account. When majorities are this slim, it takes a lot of power away from central government and gives it to Parliament - which means more power to constituents through their MPs. In that case, protesting would still be a viable and useful means of applying pressure.

The pressure being applied by protesters on the street looks likely to be assisted by resistance to the Conservative cuts from within their own party. The Tory-led Local Government Association (LGA) has cross-party agreement against further cuts, warning of the devastating impact that more budget cuts for local government could have local services and communities (Helm, 2015).

Led by Cllr David Sparks, the LGA has claimed that local government has cutback as much as it can with the reduction in funding of 40% since 2010 (Sparks, 2015). Sparks, as Chair of the LGA which represents 375 councils in England and Wales, added to that warning with a call for more power to devolved away from Westminster.

Back at Westminster, the SNP are claiming that they will be the main opposition to Conservative government during the next parliament, on the basis that they offered something significantly different - unlike Labour (The Guardian; 2015). It is important, however, that they have at least noted opposition is something that they cannot do alone. Angus Robertson, leader of the SNP MPs at Westminster, mentions that they will be prepared to reach out across party lines.

While the Liberal Democrats have previously shown how small parties can lead a strong opposition - particularly under Charles Kennedy's leadership when they opposed entry into the Iraq War (BBC, 2004) - they could only bring principled resistance and offer backing to popular pressure. They could not stop or change government decisions alone.

Labour, traditionally the voice of the workers, and the Lib Dems, the traditional voice for civil liberties, are at this moment both weak and rudderless. The absence of a strong liberal voice in Parliament is already being missed by some (The Guardian; 2015{2}).

If they, the SNP and other Parliamentary progressives are going to maintain an effective opposition to the Conservative agenda, they will have to pull together. They will have to reach out, not just across party lines, but also to local government and to the public to build a strong and co-ordinated activism.

They will need to oppose the government with protest and public opinion, build strong arguments to tackle the methods and underlying reasoning of the Conservative policies, and construct a compelling alternative progressive narrative. Against a majority government, all of these elements will have to come together to put pressure on where it will be most effective. That cannot be achieved without solidarity between progressives.

Election 2015: What the past can tell us about the SNP's role at Westminster

Talking to Andrew Marr on Sunday, David Cameron argued that a Labour government backed by the SNP would be calamitous (Wintour, 2015). He said:

"This would be the first time in our history that a group of nationalists from one part of our country would be involved in altering the direction of our country..." (Marr, 2015)

Historically that is not, however, strictly true.

If, as the polls suggest, Labour and the Conservatives are unable to break their deadlock and a hung parliament results, then we could be looking at a repeat of 1910. Swap a few of the parties around - Liberal Party and Labour Party, the Irish Parliamentary Party for the Scottish National Party - and you have a similar outcome on 7th May as occurred in 1910: the Left and Centre outnumbering the Right, and a Centre-Left minority government propped up by a party of regional nationalists (Collins, 2015).

In the years preceding 1910 there had been a withering struggle between the Liberals and Conservatives over reforming the power of the lords, to limit the power of the Tory landowners and to allow for the passage of the Liberal 'People's Budget' (Cavendish, 2009). That struggle resulted in the first election of 1910, where the Liberal majority was reduced to a Liberal minority. In an attempt to break the deadlock, a second election was held in December - but that only produced the same result.

The third largest party was the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) with 74 seats, a full 70% of the seats in Ireland - a sweep not unlike that expected from the SNP in 2015 (Kuenssberg, 2015). Since the early 1880s, the IPP had been allied to the Liberal Party in pursuit of Home Rule for Ireland (Baston, 2015). After decades of campaigning, their position of power in propping up a Liberal minority allowed them to finally achieve the passage of a Home Rule Bill.

The comparison to Irish Nationalism of the early 1900s should not be overstated, though. The struggle for Irish independence carried barely suppressed undertones of direct action and violence - reprisals for suppressions and centuries of denied reform (Baston, 2015).

Yet there remain some interesting comparisons. When the IPP secured itself the role of kingmaker in a hung parliament, it succeeded in putting Ireland right at the centre of discussions. Having been defeated in the 2014 referendum, Alex Salmond had acknowledged that the independence question would be off the table for a generation (McVeigh, 2014). But that doesn't mean that, if as expected the SNP become the third largest party in Parliament, there isn't a Scottish corner to be fought at Westminster - including the promised further devolution.

However, Ireland becoming the centre of political attention in 1910 was resented in England (Boland, 2015). That same sort of resentment is being seen again, with an anti-Scotland sentiment on the rise, fed by Right-wing propaganda (Milne, 2015). But that negativity has been countered to a degree, though, by the popularity of Nicola Sturgeon, who has received a positive reaction outside of Scotland.

The SNP's clear stance of supporting a Labour government, and opposing a Conservative one, will also have helped (The Guardian, 2015). Again, that is not unlike the IPP, who stood alongside the Liberals for decades in the campaign for Home Rule - although they had little alternative with the Conservatives utterly opposed to their aims.

While adopting a clear position - being clear as to what side the party will take in advance - has let voters know what to expect, the SNP's announcement of who they will side with in a hung parliament will restrict their bargaining power, just as it restricted that of the IPP. Yet the SNP has tried playing the two big parties off against each other before, and that did not achieve better results.

In 1979, James Callaghan's Labour minority government was defeated in a motion of no confidence - by just one vote - which ushered in the Thatcher-Conservative era. Callaghan's minority government, in return for SNP and Plaid Cymru support, had legislated for devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. Struggling to pass the act, the focus switched to a referendum. Devolution for Scotland was narrowly rejected by referendum, though not without controversy (Aitken, 2015). Having lost a referendum, the SNP took the Conservative side and moved to oust Labour. The SNP subsequently lost most of their seats at the general election.

One big difference between 2015 and either 1910 or 1979, it that reciprocity on the part of Labour to the overtures of the SNP has been at an all time low (Ship, 2015). Even if a Labour minority governs after the next election, the SNP's direct influence may well still be further restricted.

Yet the party's seats, and those of the other possible members of the discussed Progressive Alliance bloc that would sit in the next parliament (Mason, 2015), could still act as a significant anchor-weight, holding the government in the Centre-Left.

In doing so, the SNP seem to have learned the lessons of the past. They has striven to avoid accusations of splitting progressive voters by committing to being part of a broad progressive voice at Westminster. The problem is that Labour seem to have learnt the lessons as well, believing they cannot afford to appear weak and at the mercy of sectional interests if they want to keep the support of those voters they appeal to on the Centre-Right.

Having now staked out their territory, the SNP can no longer afford not to keep to their Left-leaning commitments. Any failure or perception of wavering will see the party facing the same fall from grace as suffered by the Lib Dems. Those factors should at least ensure a progressive, Left-leaning parliament if people in Scotland vote for the SNP.

One final interesting note: the strength of Ireland's voting block in the 1880s was strong enough to force a reorganisation of parliamentary workings. In order to stop the IPP voting block from using Parliament to force its issues onto the agenda, the establishment's answer was to give the the government more power over Parliamentary proceedings and reduce the power of backbenchers (Baston, 2015).

The rise of the SNP and impending minority administrations - by restricting the ability of central government to act with impunity while they hold a majority - could now return that power back to Parliament. Far from disassembling the country in the next Parliament, the SNP could just be in a position to do the whole country a favour.

Election 2015: The BBC's opposition leaders debate sees Farage cornered by the Left and lash out at the audience

David Cameron's refusal to engage with debates has led to some very awkward arrangements, one of which was tonight's debate. The leaders of the opposition present - Ed Miliband for Labour, Nicola Sturgeon for the SNP, Leanne Wood for Plaid Cymru and Natalie Bennett for the Green Party - but not Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats, who by virtue of a deal between broadcasters and the Prime Minister ends up left out (BBC, 2015).

With no place in the previous Prime Minister's debate, and no place at the opposition debate, its hard not to think that the Lib Dem have been unfairly excluded. Yet the debate itself was lopsided enough without another party of the Left or Centre taking to the stage.

With the leaders of four broadly progressive parties lining up against the leader of one Far-Right party, it was always going to feel like they were ganging up on UKIP's Nigel Farage. Farage was clearly feeling cornered - going so far as insult the entire audience and the BBC for being too Left-Wing.

The fact is though that the parties on the stage, not only the independently selected audience, were fairly representative of national polling - 13% for the Far-Right UKIP, 39%+ for the Centre-Left parties, a difference of at the least 3-1, before you even add on the numbers for the SNP and Plaid Cymru.

That was reflected throughout the debate. Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood and Natalie Bennett regularly ganged up on both Nigel Farage and Ed Miliband - challenging the Far-Right anti-immigration narrative of Farage on one side and calling for Miliband to join their anti-austerity progressive movement on the other.

That three-way alliance seemed to be a clear precursor of what Sturgeon hinted about at one stage: a Progressive Alliance bloc in the next parliament formed by MPs from the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party (Mason, 2015). On the present polling that would mean a 57 seat bloc pressuring for Left-Wing anti-austerity policies.

Once more, there was less discovered by the debate than many would have hoped. However, it did provide a platform for a challenge to Farage and UKIP's anti-immigration, anti-EU, narrative that has been contested far too little over the last five years. And, once again, it showed the UK's voters that there are alternatives, and that multi-party politics is a very real possibility. Those, at least, are some positive in favour of the debate format.

Election 2015: SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Regional Parties

Following their landslide victory in the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections, under Alex Salmond, the SNP (Scottish National Party) looked strongly placed to lead their country towards independence. Yet in 2014, independence was rejected by referendum.

In the aftermath Alex Salmond resigned and his former deputy Nicola Sturgeon stood unopposed to succeed him (BBC, 2014). Yet even defeat and a change of leadership has not shaken the party's momentum. Polling suggests the party is set to sweep the Scottish parliamentary seats on 7th May.

All of this seems to suggest a complex relationship between the SNP and their supporters.

Despite the likelihood of the party becoming the third largest group in Parliament in May, their Westminster aims are not particularly grand. Their primary ambition appears to be shared with the Green Party: to keep pulling Labour leftwards (Greenwood, 2015).

Former leader Alex Salmond, who is himself running for a seat at Westminster, has given his support to the SNP backing a Labour minority government in the likely event of a hung parliament (The Guardian, 2014). There has even been talk of a progressive alliance being formed in the next parliament between the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party (Mason, 2015).

It is this that complicates the SNP's relationship with its supporters - the tension between the SNP's separatism and many of their supporter's Left-wing politics.

The SNP has become the latest home for progressives looking for a new alternative to the Labour Party (Wishart, 2015). Like the Greens, the SNP have benefited from the Liberal Democrats going into government, and in doing so being seen to have sacrificed their values.

The SNP has certainly tried to live up to the view of the party as Left-leaning. They have promised to oppose austerity, with a fiscal plan that sees efforts to reduce the deficit spread out over many more years than their rivals - meaning less to cut in the short term and more to spend (Settle, 2015). The party has also pushed a number of progressive policies over the years, including the opposition to tuition fees, trident and private financial initiatives in the NHS (Wright, 2012).

However, the SNP has also faced criticism over individual liberties issues - such as the Liberal Democrats opposing their attempts to create an integrated National ID database (Macwhirter, 2015). The party's own traditional leanings, historically towards the political Centre rather than the Left, have also shown through in places with a very friendly attitude towards business - seen in Alex Salmond's tendency towards low corporation taxes (Wright, 2012).

The Labour Party have, however, make it all too easy for the SNP to present themselves as different, a radical alternative, to the parties of the Westminster establishment parties. Labour were all to quick to side with the Conservative No-vote campaign against independence (Wishart, 2015).

At the 2015 Scottish leaders debate, Labour leader Jim Murphy did a good job of summarising the attitude that has turned many, both in Scotland and across the UK, away from the party (STV, 2015):

"Only Labour is big enough. Only Labour is strong enough."

That sense of entitlement from Labour has not convinced many. They persist in demanding that everyone unite against Tories, but insist that it only be in rank and file behind Labour.

Even with Labour largest impeding themselves, the SNP still struggle to establish themselves as a mainstream party due to their commitment to independence. Their separatism compromises the party's chances of having any major influence at Westminster, other than as an outside critic - strength at Westminster will all be about reinforcing their national influence in Scotland (Rawnsley, 2015).

Behind the tensions between those wanting independence and those wanting an alternative party of the Left, there is also a struggle between the newer Left-wing and the older Centrist party that is trying to juggle a coalition of different interests. And gives the party a New Labour feel to it.

The question is, without the issue of independence to unite them, is the SNP ultimately more progressive and more conservative? Unfortunately the party's contradictory policies - anti-austerity but pro-business, anti-Trident but infringing civil liberties - that make it a broad tent Centre party trying to keep everyone happy, also make it impossible to be sure of the party's ideological convictions.

---

Prospects: 53 seats (for a gain of 47).*

Possible Coalition Partners: Labour (271 seats), Liberal Democrats (29), Plaid Cymru (3), Green Party (1).

Verdict: A broad tent Centre party, trying to keep and Left and Right happy in a delicate pro-Independence coalition. Leaning towards progressive for now, but not with any overwhelming conviction.

---

Plaid Cymru

In Wales there is almost a complete contrast to the SNP's success. Plaid Cymru - Party of Wales - a party of much stronger Left-wing convictions, has struggled against a Labour Party much more assured of itself than its Scottish counterpart.

Both the cause of Welsh devolution and support for Plaid Cymru were launched onto the national stage in the 1950s and 60s by the controversy of the creation of Llyn Celyn reservoir to supply Liverpool by the drowning of the Welsh village of Capel Celyn.

Over the next three decades the party saw its support rise over the 10% mark until Labour held the Welsh devolution referendum in 1997. At the first Welsh Assembly election Plaid took 28% of the votes to become the official opposition to a Labour-Lib Dem coalition. Since then the party has remained firmly established in the Welsh Assembly, governing in coalition with Labour between 2007 and 2011.

Yet at Westminster the party has hovered at around 3 seats. Having the opportunity to takes its Left-wing regionalism to a national audience in the leaders debates under leader Leanne Wood will likely help the party immensely (BBC, 2015). However, the party is still only in fourth in Welsh opinion polls - behind even UKIP - on 11% and may be on course to lose one of its only 3 seats in the Commons on 7th May (The Guardian, 2015{2}).

Until the party finds a way to break Labour's stranglehold on the Welsh electorate - twenty of the forty seats in Wales are safe, with Labour holding seventeen of them (Williamson, 2015) - Plaid Cymru will likely remain an addendum.

And the rest of the regions

In Cornwall, Mebyon Kernow - Party of Cornwall or Sons of Cornwall - are the local equivalent to the SNP and Plaid Cymru. They support devolution for Cornwall, and share the Left-of-Centre approach of their equivalent parties in Scotland and Wales. So far they have only achieved representation on Cornwall Council.

As for Northern Ireland, that is an almost entirely separate political system within the larger UK system, largely divided between sectarian interests. Here is a link to some seat predictions for the seats in Northern Ireland.

Election 2015: A Shorthand Guide to the 2015 UK General Election

Welcome to our shorthand guide to the 2015 UK general election. This will also act as a master post, a hub from which you can reach our more detailed assessment of the main issues and the policies of the major parties.

• Conservative Party
• Labour Party
• Liberal Democrats
• Green Party and the Left
• UKIP and the Right
• SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Regional Parties
• Party manifesto commitments and the values behind the policies
• What history can tell us about the SNP's future role at Westminster
• Healthcare, public funding and the future of the NHS
• Economics - Austerity, Austerity Lite or an Alternative
• The European Union - is the UK's future in or out

For the first time since 1910, the UK looks like it will elect two consecutive hung parliaments. By denying the two traditional opposing parties the right to dominate, the electorate has opened the floor to a lot of new ideas, from a lot of new parties. Over the next seven days The Alternative will take a look at each of the challengers, in turn, that are hoping to get your vote on 7th May, and over the next month pick apart the big issues up for debate.

The election itself will be fought, once more, under the first-past-the-post electoral system. Voters had the chance to reject and replace the system in a Liberal Democrat backed referendum but - in a low turnout of 41%, about 19m people - the change was rejected by 68% to 32% (BBC, 2011). Voting will take place on 7th May. The votes will be counted as soon as the polls close at 10pm and the result will be announced in each constituency as soon as it is known.

After the counting, the leader of the obvious majority in the House of Commons will be called to the palace and asked to form a government. However, if there is no clear leader then negotiations will begin. There are a couple of options at that point. The first option will be a coalition government between two parties that between them is able to hold a majority. The second will be a minority government, where one of the parties - likely at this point to be Conservative or Labour - will go it alone on an issue by issue basis, with no guarantee that it will be able to pass legislation.

At present, the polls tell us that the Conservatives and Labour look to be stuck in deadlock - both holding around 270 seats, each about 50 short of a majority. With the Liberal Democrats looking unlikely to keep enough seats to tip the balance one way or another, a minority government looks at present to be most likely - for the first time in the UK since the Labour governments of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan in the 1970s. The other option would of course be a 'Grand Coalition', where the biggest parties representing the Left and Right formed a coalition with each - something not uncommon in Europe, seen from time to time in Italy and in Germany, where the present government combines the conservative CDU with the social democratic SPD. However, the historical differences between Labour and Conservative supporters would make such a deal almost impossible.

Before all that though, the parties will have to convince voters of their ideas, or - as is more often the case - defend their record.

David Cameron, with so many challengers waiting in the wings to contest his leadership, needs nothing less than to secure a majority for the Conservatives. Achieving that will depend, firstly, upon having convinced the public that austerity was absolutely necessary, and that, secondly, it will produce a competitive advantage in the long run that will be generally beneficial.

On 7th May, the electorate will also pass judgement on the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and on coalition government in general. The answer to that question will not come from the success or failure of Cameron, but rather from Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems. Whether or not the decision to enter coalition has been accepted by voters will be seen in how much support, and how many seats, the Lib Dems are able to retain - likely regardless of the policies they put forward.

Ed Miliband, meanwhile, has found himself having to answer to the legacy of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Labour's results under his leadership will go some way to showing us if his party has managed to shake off the disaffection that saw Labour finally lose its majority in 2010, after thirteen years in office. Votes for Labour will also likely reflect a rejection of Cameron's policies - even if Labour have largely ruled out ending austerity (Whitaker, 2014).

These three, the traditional British parties, will this time be facing some new challengers who have a real chance to upset the established order. UKIP and the Greens, representing the Far-Right and Far-Left respectively, are both polling over 5% for the first time at a general election - making that five parties over 5% in England alone - and Scotland looks sure to be swept by the SNP, so comprehensively as to make them the new third party overall in the UK.

But the only reason any of this will matter is if you vote. Not voting is, as Nick Clegg put it on The Last Leg:

"It's like going to Nando's and asking someone else to put in your order, and then you get something you don't want. If you don't vote, you'll get a kind of government you don't want. So get stuck in there and vote."

If you want change, then you need to vote. Plain and simple. Not voting just leaves others to make big decisions for you, about your life, on your behalf. What will not be simple is figuring out who to vote for to get the change you want. Over the next week The Alternative will post a guide to each of the main parties competing in 2015, and over the next month on the NHS, the Economy and the European Union, filled with links to references, to help you make your choice on 7th May.

Election 2015: Seven-way debate sees the Left outnumber the Right to talk about ideals, fairness and being open to the world

Before tonight's ITV leader's debate began, the focus had been steadily upon David Cameron and Ed Miliband (Battersby, 2015; Hawkins, 2015). There are obvious reasons why. Polling continues to suggest either the Conservatives or Labour will be the biggest party come May - and that it will be close however the ballot papers eventually stack.

But the debate itself reflected the other thing that the polls have been saying: British politics has fragmented. There are now five parties that compete across the whole of Britain and are polling over 5%, and two regional parties with a large and growing presence within two of Britain's countries. For those smaller parties it was always going to be a major boost just to be invited to the show (Robinson, 2015).

Yet they did so much more. Natalie Bennett of the Green Party and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru talked about ideals like freedom of movement. Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP spoke of ending austerity. Nick Clegg joined in, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, to challenge Farage over the need to be open hearted and fair.

Despite Farage's best obsessive anti-European efforts, he was repeatedly overshadowed by the three female leaders of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens. Their anti-austerity message and language of hope frequently stole his thunder and ensured that the Left outnumbered the Right in every round of the debate. Whenever he tried to push the anti-immigration and anti-EU agenda, there was a voice - as there has been far too infrequently in recent years - to speak of being Pro-European as being open to the world, positive and fair in how we treat other people.

The reality is that TV debates have been shown not to play a particularly useful role in analysing the ideas of the different parties (Cooper, 2015). But what this debate has done is to provide people with reassurance that there are other alternatives out there. There are different narratives to the mainstream idea of fiscal austerity. There is a will to be open and co-operate, rather just compete and alienate. As Natalie Bennett put it:

"If you want change, you have to vote for it. You don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.