The Alternative Election 2019: It's the morning after, again

The country didn't suddenly becomes heartless overnight. Sorry, I should rephrase that. I don't believe that Britain is (enitrely) a place of selfish, intolerant, poor-bashing Tories. And, really, the statistics agree with me on that.

More people voted for progressive ideas (Labour-Lib Dems-Greens) than voted for the conservative ideas (Tories-BXP), both in the UK as a whole and more narrowly in England. And I'm inclined to believe that the conservative vote was artificially inflated by Brexit, the divisive issue of the day.

For those who see "Getting Brexit Done" as the main issue, it is not a simple matter to write them off as secret Tories voting for privatisation. I'm sure many of them want to save the NHS. I'm sure many of them care about the least well off.

But are electoral system is flawed and our institutions painfully rigged up for hostility to radical progressive change. And last night, that resulted in Boris winning 50 more seats and a majority with an increase in support of just 1%.

More damaging for progressives was that Labour lost 8% of their vote compared to 2017, which spread out across the other parties. Conservative gains where less impactful than - or perhaps rather depended upon - Labour losing votes to other parties.

The stats present a picture of progressives playing the electoral game less well than the Conservatives.

Part of that, but only a part, was Brexit. The Conservatives identified themselves clearly with one polarised side of the debate and got their message through. Labour hedged bets.

But the reasons people voted for Brexit were more complicated than people perhaps like to admit - and Brexit supporters, even in the North, were more middle class than people like to admit.

Sure, former industrial towns in the North voted for Brexit, and then for the Tories yesterday. Yet, as Anoosh Chakelian of the New Statesman wrote, it's a long time now since these places were industrial. I'll be keeping an eye out for a demographic analysis of Tory voters in the North.

However, none of this will be terribly reassuring for those who wake up to the terror of a five year Tory majority.

Those people are on my mind this morning. I think those people were on George Monbiot's mind too when he put together a thread of what we can do next - stressing that community action becomes imperative now, to protect as many people as we can.

And that, I think, feeds how progressives fight back politically.

 Something has to change to make the outcome different next time. I think Monbiot is right, we need to start in our communities. And I think Chakelian is right, too: Labour's problems in the North didn't start with Corbyn and won't end there.

People are terrified by their declining living standards. Others are helpless, their living standards having hit rock bottom with food banks and mounting debts. We need to start organising help for those most in need and maybe find there, or build there, a sense of optimism with which to appeal to the 'squeezed middle', to bring them back into a progressive coalition.

For that, progressive politicians need to get their heads out of Westminster. Labour vs Lib Dem vs Green infighting serves no one but the Tories. They need open, amiable leaders committed, not just willing, to cooperating to offer something optimistic.

And I think maybe more needs to be done on top of that. This can't just be won in Westminster and on social media. There needs to be some tangible movement behind it.

A proper electoral alliance. A proper progressive front. And beneath it all, community action. Municipal movements, rallying individual, concerned citizens together with campaign groups on homelessness and rent, payday lending and benefits debt, on all these cause and more than leave me cold and afraid.

The government for the next five years is not going to represent the majority. Well, nothing new there. But there are plenty of people - the most vulnerable, mostly - who depend upon the state.

We need to do what we can to try and pick up the slack for those people and start building towards winning back the support they need and put that central to our thinking as we move forwards.

The Alternative Election 2019: Conservatives, 'Status Quo'

Boris offers no change, never mind anything transformative. And the promises he does make can't be trusted. Conservative government will most likely continue in the same vein as before - more austerity, more cuts and the cost of it all falling on the most vulnerable.

This is, plain and simple, an argument for voting against the Tories. Why you would be here looking for an endorsement is beyond me. To be clear: you won't find that here. The Conservative and Unionist Party in government has been a disaster.

Austerity has given rise to the return of Dickensian poverty - working poverty and child poverty prominent. Food bank use is through the roof, schools are taking donations and feeding children going hungry. You only need to check out Channel 4 Dispatches to see how the Tories are comfortable with the poorest subsisting.

How do the Tories reply? A meagre 2% or less rise to working age benefits and the carer's allowance. A continuation of welfare policies that will continue to punish the poorest and hurt their wellbeing most.

And all the while our health and social care system is being mismanaged and underfunded, with waiting times now hitting their worst ever level. All the Tories have for an answer is reannouncing old funding as new, funding previously promised and not delivered - that was predicated upon NHS trusts making slashing cuts to their budgets in the first place.

And if the Conservative commitment to austerity, that is destroying the lives of the most vulnerable people, isn't enough to dissuade you from voting for them, maybe the lies are?

Nevermind the well documented fact that Boris lies (or says something racist or sexist) about as often as he opens his mouth. Nevermind that Boris thinks greed and selfishness are good.

Nevermind the Tories' in general governing-by-media approach of announcing and reannouncing the same spending over and again as new to grab headlines. Nevermind the incompetence of the Tories failing to deliver a single one of their pledged new starter homes because they never bothered to take the necessary initial step of passing the bill in Parliament.

Maybe just consider that (in this election, where Boris lied in an interview by saying he's not a liar) the party under his control decided to deceive viewers (that's you, the voting public) of an election debate by renaming their social media account to "factcheckUK" to attack their opponents - in a debate where Boris himself spoke on how little people trust politicians.

The Conservative Manifesto promises no significant change in policy - not that you could trust it, if it did. It's a do nothing manifesto that lets austerity continue indefinitely. The present disaster is lurching towards catastrophe. It's time (long, long overdue) for people to wake up and kick the Tories out.

The Alternative General Election 2019: Progressive parties need to settle their differences

This is another election that will come down to a simple arithmetic: how can progressives prevent another Tory government, led by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. That simple arithmetic is given a crudity by the fact that most of the progressive parties do not get along.

It's a particularly extraordinary factor in British politics, when you consider how close our progressive political parties are to one another - in their concerns, in their approach, in their policies. Those crossovers continue into this election.

Progressive Goals

All of the progressive parties share a commitment to tackling the climate crisis, with emissions goals set for the 2030s. The features vary, but include tackling energy costs for households and funding the reorganisation of the energy sector and industry to reduce pollution.

Lifelong learning is also a common feature, committing progressives to spending more to enable people to retrain during their working life, and adapt better as the economy changes.

Across the progressive parties is also an instinct to ease the burden that comes with welfare, including, in some form or another, a trial scheme for a basic income.

And of course, tackling the housing crisis is a key priority for all of them, with each making their pitch for how many and what kind of homes they will build.

As ever though, the parties have their differences. What primarily divides the progressive parties are their jealous priorities - and also their deep seated dislike for one another's approach to politics.

Priorities

For Labour, it is what they call real change - the role that public ownership could and should play in giving people a fair chance at a good life. A possibly expensive policy objective that has riled up a lot of people within and without the party.

For the Greens, it's the climate emergency. The centrepiece to a manifesto with some big commitments is £100bn to reach emissions targets by 2030 - much more ambitious than those of the other parties.

And for the Liberal Democrats, they have made "Stop Brexit" their slogan, and to the annoyance even of some of their own supporters, almost the single issue for which the party now stands - even when they might make meaningful pitches on welfare or education reform.

None of these priorities ought to rule out cooperation, but the mutual antipathy between the parties and their memberships always makes things difficult. But imagine if they could cooperate?

For now, see for yourself how close the two biggest progressive parties get in their manifestos, which we breakdown in these articles below:

Labour manifesto review, 'Real Change';

Liberal Democrats manifesto review, 'Stop Brexit';

and then contrast those with the manifesto, and the record in government, of the Conservatives, 'Status Quo';

How badly do you want the Tories out?

This election has all the makings of another two horse race - however much Jo Swinson may be hoping for a Canadian Liberal scale landslide shift. This country's two-party system is just too hard to crack without extenuating circumstances, and the Lib Dems have made too many people mistrustful.

Which makes Labour's determination to stick to it's majoritarian big tent attitude - even in the Corbyn/Momentum era - all the more absurd. Yes, Britain has a two party system. But it has many more parties, that all gain votes and all have devoted supporters who at times are openly hostile to the big two.

Not working in alliance with the third parties, and not working to break up this inequitable electoral and parliamentary system, is a ludicrous act of self harm by the Labour Party - which clings to the remnants of power, mostly expressed these days in the one-party-state level of control it holds over some communities.

Not that other parties have been displaying much of an appetite for unconditional cooperation. The Lib Dems have been trying to oust Corbyn, or deny him the Premiership, as their price for working with Labour. Meanwhile, the SNP want a second referendum on Scottish Independence as their price - one that is too high for most English parties.

That's not to say there has been no cooperation. Working in a small progressive alliance, the Lib Dems, the Greens and Plaid Cymru will probably be able to pick up some crucial seats among the sixty where they are working together. Taking seats away from the Tories, but perhaps also taking seats from Labour.

Labour need to be on the right side of these political alliances if it wants to get into government. The balance of support, in England in particular, means that Labour depend upon tactical voting for them against the Tories, and voters elsewhere leaving the Tories for parties who have a chance to oust them where Labour are outsiders.

Like at the last election, it may be left for ordinary voters, campaign groups and local party associations to work out the cooperation that the national level party leaderships can't if progressives are to oust the Conservatives and their damaging era of austerity and government-by-press-release.

And the damaging era of Tory rule must end. It's been a disaster for the most vulnerable, with the return of Dickensian poverty. Austerity is bad and there is no end in sight under the Tories.

Local Elections 2019: What the most vulnerable need from their councillors

On Thursday, most of the English councils outside of London will hold their local elections. These elections range from a third of seats on the council to whole council elections, meaning a lot of local areas could see control of their councils switch to different parties.

Considering the policies of the governing Conservatives, the austerity they have reigned over that has hurt local areas badly, and the backlash being predicted, the fact that they have the most seats and councils to defend - more than twice second place Labour - could make Thursday a damaging night for them.

That would be good news for the most vulnerable in our society, who desperately need representatives in local government who will push back. And there are some crucial issues that need outspoken councillors.

Just this week came the news that funding to help the homeless has plummeted under the Tories. With resources stretched by the cuts, it's the most vulnerable who lose out. Local government spending on single homelessness fell by £5bn over the last decade, even as rough sleeping rose by well over 100% - with new funding failing even to cover cuts.

That desperate situation for the working age poor is matched by the hit that social care for the elderly has taken under the watch of the Conservatives. Bailing on their centrepiece manifesto reforms, the Tories simply haven't arrested this dangerous situation - and while debate over the way forward continues, the care sector is collapsing.

At the core of the problems facing local communities are the cuts inflicted by the Tories at Westminster. On all of these issues, Westminster government holds decision-making on funding in an iron grip. And, right now under the Tories, that power is being used to choke off redistribution from richer to poorer communities.

The relationship between central government and local government cannot continue to be top down. Westminster needs to be a coordinator, helping local governments work together on mutual projects and for mutual positive outcomes. It seems unlikely that we will get that as long as the Tories and Labour keep their grip on power.

While Labour do at least pursue redistribution, in parts of Britain their local government presence is so powerful that the party is practically indistinguishable from the local administrative structures. One party states are as dangerous as states built on top down authority that divide communities against each other. We need new options. The most vulnerable need new options.

For progressives, the priority for now is ousting the Tories wherever possible. Labour's primary pitch, of introducing the Preston model to other councils is a sound proposition. But the reluctance of the party to accept pluralism means in the long run that party also has to be challenged.

So look closely at your councillor candidates and consider: how they will deal with the issues pressing upon the most vulnerable? Are willing and able to push back against Westminster? Will they open up local government to more voices? And when you've made up you mind, get out their and vote!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget 2018: Chancellor does the minimum to avoid austerity deepening, but this was no windfall budget to undo the hurt

By the end of the next five year period, the government will be spending £30 billion more a year - the largest rise in public spending since 2010. That's the headline that the government will want to see rolling out.

But that is only the surface appearance. The reality is - as Institute of Fiscal Studies Director Paul Johnson said - £30 billion was the minimum to stave off deeper cuts. And the benefit of that spending goes squarely to the NHS.

While no one is going to dispute the NHS feeling the benefit of increased public spending, in this budget the increased spending on healthcare disguises the reality underneath of public spending stagnating - the cuts of the past decade are not being undone and departments may face more cuts ahead.

Measures in this budget were plentiful, but it was money spread thin. Just £800 million for local government, £1.0bn for Defence, £160 million for counter-terrorism policing, £400 million one-off emergency fund for schools, £420 million for highway repairs.

There was a range of handwaved increases for tech and infrastructure to the tune of £1.6bn plus. A mixed bag of measures for apprenticeships worth £650 million. A package of complex investment incentives made up of reliefs and loans.

A 'co-funded' £650 million to renovate high streets. The headline Business Rates cut (said to cost £900 million) - a policy where it is still unclear who will bear the burden, the Treasury or local councils, as the Chancellor has already announced the intention to let councils keep larger percentages of the rates. There was a few hundred million to speed up housing developments and around £4bn for the city regions and the devolved administrations.

For households, there was a £200 million a year increase to 'transition support' for those moving over to Universal Credit and the work allowances were to be relaxed to, at a cost of £1.7bn, to mitigate the impact of the new welfare system on the poorest for which the government had been criticised - but only once the roll out is completed, which could be deferred for a long time at this rate.

There is also the cost to be calculated of tax cuts, including the freezes to a series of duties and the further increase in the personal income tax thresholds - up to £12,500 for earnings before tax applies and a higher rate threshold increased to £50,000.

In total, there was about £7bn spread over the next few years, plus the cost of tax cuts, with perhaps less than £4bn in new one-off spending - and a little under £2bn deferred until the rollout of Universal Credit has been completed. It appears the NHS will get an amount reaching more than £20bn a year by 2023.

The economic forecasts, and tax receipts, gave the Philip Hammond what he wanted: the ability to achieve a surplus and completely wipe out the deficit, so the debt could begin to come down at a faster rate. However, the needs of the NHS in crisis seem to have pressed the Chancellor to action.

Otherwise, Hammond stayed true to form. He preferred to use his room for new measures on tax cuts - to 'keep money in pockets' - than funding public services in plight. In fact, to keep in track, how the Chancellor used his headroom means that there will probably be more department funding cuts to come.

Austerity is not over. At best, the Chancellor Philip Hammond has stumped up the bare minimum cash to stop austerity further deepening. Even then it is a temporary measure, as the Spending Review he announced for next year will likely reveal that there are still more cuts to come.

Universal Credit: Labour say no to universal credit, leaving the future of welfare uncertain

Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has let it be known that Universal Credit, the government's controversial revamp of welfare, faces being scrapped. McDonnell called the system unsustainable, as he finally appeared to move the party off the fence on welfare.

Universal Credit was the flagship Conservative policy and was intended to merge a range of benefits into one, simpler, payment - with better tapering and stricter limits - in theory to 'make work pay'. However, the rollout of the policy has been a disaster.

The policy rollout has gone over budget; it has created delays in processing applications and making payments, leading to individuals running up debts and turning to foodbanks; and with the full rollout, even single parents could be over £2000 worse off.

For the government, welfare reform has been a constant hazard. It's approach, dubbed 'workfare', has been picked apart at every step. Scandals like welfare claimants finding themselves farmed out for unpaid labour - a practice that was challenged and criticised through the courts, though continues - has undermined reforms.

So has the Tories' handling of disability welfare claims. Causes ranging from maladministration to deeply flawed fitness to work assessments have left many claimants with disabilities thousands of pounds out of pocket and denied crucial support.

The government has done itself no favours with revelations that officials were given targets to reject 4 out of 5 applications, and through spending tens of millions in legal action to avoid having to meet denied disability welfare payments.

Funding issues have undermined the policy too. The policy's architect, and former Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith eventually quit as the Minister responsible with a flurry of criticism - at the core, furious that funding was not were he wanted it to be for the reforms to work.

It is unsurprising that Labour doesn't want to handle this shambles.

However, for Labour this marks a significant change in their stance. In their 2017 manifesto, the Labour Party barely touched the subject of welfare. The limits of their interest had seemed to be in getting the Conservative system working - not even committing to more funding.

Labour have not proposed a replacement system. For that, it may be necessary to wait for a new manifesto. But it seems unlikely that either the old system nor Universal Credit will now remain in place under a Labour government.

Without tacit opposition support, the policy's days are numbered. The questions now is what comes next? Where does Britain go next in search of a fair and sustainable social security safety net?

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.

What would politics in Britain look like with the break up of the old power blocks?

What might party splits do to alignment of political parties in England? There would be six parties with Parliamentary seats in England, but how long would that last before mergers began?

The threat of 'splitting the party' has rarely been thrown around in British politics more than it is these days. The rumours of a Labour split rumble on and now the threat of a split in the Conservatve party has returned - issued by the disgruntled Brexiter right wing.

Could we be on the cusp of some major realignment of politics? It's unlikely to be that easy.

The power of the status quo in British politics can not be overstated. While there have been major splits and political realignments before, they have still, ultimately, kept to a two-party form - with one broadly conservative and the other broadly progressive.

Historical Realignment

The biggest shift took a little over thirty years to achieve the new alignment. The beginning was the split of the Liberal Unionists from the Liberal Party in the 1890s, under the leadership of Joseph Chamberlain. The group banged a particularly patriotic and jingoistic drum, supporting Empire and colonialism and opposing Home Rule for Ireland.

Chamberlain's Unionists very quickly aligned with the Conservatives - forming a decade long government. But it was not enough to break the Liberals, who afterward led Britain up to the Great War. But as the Liberals did so, they helped laid the foundations for their own ousting from the two-party supremacy.

In the early days of the Labour movement, trade unionist candidates stood with Liberal backing. When the movement resolved to form a party, the Liberals supported it with an electoral pact that supported Labour into winning it's own seats and building a Parliamentary presence.

Following the Great War, the National Government that had led the country through the war - a coalition of Conservatives, Unionists and Liberals - finally broke up.

Having absorbed the Unionists prior to the war, the Conservatives were now the dominant force - especially as progressive voters being divided between two Liberals factions and the newer Labour Party.

There were a glut of elections in the subsequent interwar period. In them, the Conservatives remained the usually largest party. But the Labour party would win it's first governments as a minority during this time under Ramsay MacDonald as they became the second largest party ahead of the Liberals - even after the Liberals reunited.

However, the onset of the Great Depression split the Labour party as it split others and ushered in another period of Conservative dominance - which would complete a political realignment thirty years in the making.

Members of both the Liberals and Labour would support the Conservatives under a National Government banner that would last until the Second World War - splitting from their parties to become known as Liberal National and National Labour respectively - and led by the expelled Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald and his National Labour for four years.

The whittling away of the Liberals and the continued use of First-past-the-post (Fptp) voting ensured that, as the Consevratives absorbed their National allies, a new two-party system would emerge from the war years. A two-party, Conservative-Labour domination that has persisted since.

Contemporary Realignment

The splits threatened in contemporary politics, if they could actually break out of a mould that has lasted for more than seventy years, would split the Big Two parties into at least four parties.

These would be: a right-wing Brexiter party, the continuing and nominally centre-right Conservative Party, a centrist Pro-European party, and the continuing centre-left Labour Party - splits that would lean British politics rightwards.

Including the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, politics in Britain would have six parties, just in England, with seats in Parliament. The obvious reaction would be for these new groups to try and form alliances under the present Fptp voting system. But if those efforts were frustrated, a move to some form of Proportional Representation might finally be contemplated.

Big questions remain, however. How many MPs would be prepared to actually make the leap to a new party? Brexiter Tories claim to have 80 MPs willing to rebel. And it is easy to imagine, from MP resistance to Corbyn, that a fair number might join a breakaway from Labour - if it were popular.

How many of the Pro-European moderate Tories would be willing to leave to join a new centrist party formed by Labour breakaways? And would the Liberal Democrats merge with such a party to form one big 'Democratic' party?

This last option is the one that, if it worked, might most drastically change the political landscape. But it feels like the moment for such a move has past - a chance not taken by Tony Blair when he had the power and popularity before the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More likely is a standoff between four factions as they try not to trip over each other and figure out who their allies might be in an election. The winner, perhaps, may be the party that manages not to split apart. As ever, the safety of the status quo is a powerful draw - even when it is ineffectual and mired by factional infighting.

For progressives, the desire is for plurality. For several parties that work constructively together for broader goals, even when they don't agree on priorities. If a split on the centre-left helps stop the bickering and sniping, it will be welcomed. If not, it could be a long time before we see a truly progressive government.

Election 2018? May government has backed itself into a corner again and again, only to slip away to fight another day

Will there be an election this year? That's the big question on the tongues of everyone interested in British politics right now.

Theresa May's big effort to bring together her party - to bring it into line with the 'Brexit mandate' she claimed and coopted for herself - with a plan for Brexit backfired spectacularly. There have been big profile resignations, rumour of a leadership challenge and a divisions are now as wide as they have ever been.

For their part, Labour are raring to go. They're ahead in the polls and full of the belief that their poll lead will only be the starting position for another election campaign that will gather steam and see another surge.

However. Theresa May has so far managed to steer her government through one crisis after another - into and out of one corner after another - and cling to power. Even as each time pundits say a leadership challenge is brewing, and perhaps an election is not far away.

In fact, this government has lasted far longer than expected and predicted, considering it's disastrous election campaign, it's weakness, it's divisions, it's lack of a majority. But clinging on in that state surely cannot last.

There have been other minority governments that have limped along like this. John Major's minority government, as Tory seats were whittled away in by-elections and defections, lasted just four months. With a series of pacts with other parties, the Callaghan minority government kept going for two years, but lost heavily when it finally reached an election.

Theresa May again faces divisions that seem insurmountable - her Brexit white paper having exposed, rather than resealed, the cracks. Tory Brexiters are unhappy and so are the Tory Remainers, with one wing preparing to challenge May's leadership and the other starting to call for a second referendum on the final Brexit deal.

But the May govt still has, for the moment, it's deal with the DUP intact. And she has another thing on her side. For a year, May has survived by defusing crises with dsitractions, often simply waiting it out until everyone gets bored and moves on, and with a sheer stubborn refusal to accept the reality of her government's weak position.

Yet it is that weak position itself that may very well be what helps her fend off the threat of an election. The Tories see the polls and know that Labour is so close to taking power - and the one thing the Tories can unite on is not letting Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell into No.10 and No.11 Downing Street. And their internal squabbles are making their dread outcome a realistic prospect.

What weighs in favour of the Tories is that there can be a change of Prime Minister, even of the government, without an election. It is a fact that the Tories will lean upon heavily in the coming months, if a leadership challenge emerges. They will be eager let everyone know that a new leader is to ensure continuity, rather than to change direction, to minimise claims that an election must surely follow.

The reality facing progressives is that, even as weak as the May government is, it's fate is still in the hands of the Conservatives themselves. With a defiant vote by Tory rebels to force an election unlikely, it will take a sustained swell of public pressure to force the Tories into a premature election.

Corbyn and McDonnell are victims of their own success. They have gotten Labour so close, and leading in the polls, that whatever else the government does, it knows it can't risk an election. The weakened government can do nothing but limp on.

Ideology, NHS funding and money from nothing: Beware politicians bearing gifts

Under Theresa May and Philip Hammond, the Conservative government has continued on from where it left off under David Cameron and George Osborne. Austerity at the top of the agenda, with all else battered before it's ideological wake.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that the Prime Minister at the head of the party of austerity, this weekend, made a pledge to increase NHS funding by £20 billion a year.

How does this happen?

The Conservatives, for sure, in the majority these days ascribe to a "pro-business" ideology. A belief in private sector growth that boosts tax returns, that in turn cuts taxes, that in turn boosts private sector growth.

That is the ideological belief, at least. One that requires the market to play along with the ideal - particularly when the private sector is required to pick up the slack as the public sector is cut back by the government.

However, these ideological ideas must interact with the real world - and with one of the prime movers of compromise in the political sphere: the point at which politics as ideology meets politics as a competition with a lot riding on it.

The Conservatives in government and Labour on the opposition benches have differing ideologies - though the gaps between the two are at times and in places very narrow, and produce primary outcomes that are very similar.

That similarity comes from politics as a high stakes competition. Each party vying to shape public opinion, or to win over the electorate as public opinion stands - shaping what is called the 'centre ground'.

So even as the Tory government cuts with one hand, it looks to deliver a windfall with the other, to shore up electoral support. And, in this case, that means doing precisely that which the party accuses Labour - making large spending commitments, reckless in the absence of a clearly defined statement as to where the money will come from.

But ideology is never far away. Theresa May followed up her offer of new funding with a cautionary word that the health service much watch and account for every penny carefully. And others have pointed out that this injection of cash only brings the NHS back up to level of funding it had between 1948 and 2010 - when the Tories began imposing austerity.

So long as we treat politics like a game of win or lose in the pursuit of power, we can expect belief to be mingled with ambitious pragmatism. And we must remain wary that what we're being sold comes through layers of motivations - especially when it's a windfall of cash with no obvious source.

Local Elections 2018 Preview: Labour look set for gains, but what we need more is a greater diversity of perspectives

Manchester City Council, with 95 Labour councillors and 1 Liberal Democrat, is a prime example of the need for a greater diversity of unwhipped perspectives in local government. Photograph: Manchester Town Hall by Stephen Douglas (Licence)

After last year's opportunistic election did not go to plan for Theresa May's Conservative and Unionist Party, her government - propped up by the Northern Irish loyalist Democratic Unionist Party - has been stumbling from one potential crisis to another.

These elections come at a strange time. Despite both main parties struggling, they both remain at around 40% in the polls and have a strangling grip on local government. Is this a chance for smaller parties to make some breakthroughs on councils?

With the majoritarian two-party system reasserting itself, some pushback from smaller parties like the Greens or Lib Dems would be welcome, to ensure representation of a wider set of perspectives - and to increase the accountability of local councils.

Conservatives

This will be the Tories first big electoral test since then. The final totals will need to weighed against the fact that half of the seats up for re-election are currently held by Labour. Yet there could be some headline defeats for the government.

Theresa May's party is particularly at risk of losing council seats in London. This includes control of Wandsworth, their flagship council from the time of Margaret Thatcher, which was used as the pioneer for contracting out local services.

The Conservative have taken a low key approach to the local elections. This may be a result of their own strategists projecting heavy losses to Labour. Downing St may have accepted that and prepared to downplay the significance.

This hasn't stopped local Conservative branches from pursuing aggressive campaigning tactics - including repeating the racist and Islamophobic overtones of the Goldsmith campaign for Mayor of London, which targetted Sadiq Khan's ethnicity and religion.

This time around there has been condemnation from Tory voices. But is the Conservative establishment distancing itself simply because of the timing? Local councillors have said their leaflets were signed off by Conservative HQ.

Mired by the Windrush scandal - entirely of their own creation - and with the media pursuing Labour hard over antisemitism, did the Tories just find it an inconvenient moment to be pursuing openly divisive tactics themselves?

Labour

With Labour holding most of the council seats up for grabs this time around, the party has to make inroads in Conservative areas. Part of that has them focussing very heavily on London - perhaps sensing that there are big headlines to be written.

Key Conservative controlled areas could be vulnerable to Labour and sweeping gains - on a night when they will begin already in a dominant position - will be an emphatic statement that can be milked for publicity and be used to continue the narrative of a Labour Party on the ascent.

For the Labour Party leadership, that would be a much need boost as their forward momentum has been arrested - despite the Tories creating problems for themselves - by their inability to adequately address the issue of antisemitism.

The media and critics have run roughshod over Labour on the issue, and Corbyn and his team have not come up with a way to convincingly show that antisemitism will not be tolerated - and thus diffuse the issue. As a result, a cloud hangs over the party.

So too does the ever looming prospect of a split. It's hard to see how anyone on the opposition benches would benefit, in the short term, from an inamicable split - even though a split increasingly seems like a good idea, to end the spiteful internal squabbling.

A split is hindered however, by the archaic quirks of our electoral system, that does not abide multiple parties and the increase in critical perspectives it can bring, nor the prospect of groups working together despite holding different membership cards.

Opposition

The Green Party laid out this, the big theme of the local elections, in the UK in their campaign launch. Co-leader Jon Bartley called for an end to Britain's "one-party state" local councils, to increase their transparency and accountability to local people.

It's an argument that thinktank Compass and it's chair Neal Lawson also press, stressing that Labour need to overcome their obsession with claiming a monopoly on power - which leads it to absorb or crush any possible rivals, rather than working with them.

In terms of the Green Party's own prospects, their best hope may be in trying to make inroads into Labour dominated councils, whose unchallenged authority has resulted in some poor outcomes - that have left some voters disaffected. Consider, for example, the goings-on under Labour at Haringey or Sheffield.

The other visible party of opposition in local government are the Liberal Democrats. Buoyed perhaps by their consistent - as usual - good form in council by-elections, they've been talking up their chances of a mini-revival at the local government level.

With the polls consistently putting the Conservatives and Labour neck and neck, 40% to 40%, it's difficult to see where the Lib Dems will make inroads - especially after several years of desperate defence, to hang on to what they hold.

As supporters of a Progressive Alliance, The Alternative wants the Lib Dems to refind their progressive side. But at present their best chance of picking up seats may be by, finally, convincing Conservative voters that what they liked about the Coalition was actually the Lib Dems all along.

So watch Lib-Con head-to-heads. This is a dynamic that could have a gigantic affect on a future election, where Lib Dems taking votes and seats directly from the Tories could tip Theresa May out of office and open the way for Labour.

Voter ID

These local elections will also be the first to trial the controversial new Voter ID measures that the Conservatives hope to roll out nationally. Such measures have been deeply criticised by electoral and rights groups.

The reality is that, first of all, Britain has very little in the way of electoral fraud, and second, that Voter ID does little to stop voter fraud. In fact, it does little but deter voters - discriminating particularly against the poor.

The trial runs will take place in Swindon, Gosport, Woking, Bromley, and Watford.

Municipalism

If we are to have effective local government there must be no barriers to participation for the community. Their representatives must be accountable and transparent, and able to hold local bodies to those same standards on the public behalf.

Erecting barriers, especially those disproportionately impacting voters from minority groups, and leaving one-party local councils unchallenged, is a recipe for bad governance. Well run, accountable local government can achieve so much at the municipal level.

There are big ideas out there, from Barcelona to Preston. Municipalism taking root. Local government can empower local people. The first step is to break up the local political monopolies, to leave them no choice but to start hearing criticism and engaging with it.

A New Party? Opportunists wait in the wings to seize upon a Lab-Con governing impasse

This weekend revealed that a number of rich donors are working on putting the pieces in place for a new political party. The revelation did not go over well, with a lot of criticism aimed at a party based on money first, and supporters second.

There is a strong impression among commentators that the plan is for a new party of neoliberalism and vague bureaucratic centrism, to unite the Blairite trend of New Labour with the Cameron and Osborne wing of the Conservative Party.

Is that really where the future of British politics lies?

Well the certainly times haven't been favourable to the Liberal Democrats, for instance, whose Orange Book wing that led them into The Coalition represents this same kind of neoliberal platform. They have largely been forgotten by the electorate - though there are more complex reasons for that.

Is a new neoliberal party the catalyst that will 'remoderate' an electorate that the 'centrists' perceive as being torn apart by the militant division between the Tories turning rightward and Labour turning leftward into Corbynist socialism?

Who would even lead such a party? Are Tony Blair and George Osborne hoping to make a dramatic political comeback? Maybe the plan is to push forward Yvette Cooper, the Labour leadership contender and figurehead of 'moderate' Labour?

This kind of party certainly seems to be a long term aim of Tony Blair, as we previously wrote about the direction he took at the helm of New Labour, steering Labour towards being a sort of big tent, middle ground, Democratic Party.

Blair and New Labour did not, however, complete their 'modernising' project. He and others tried to have things both ways - clinging to left-wing pretensions, and trade union backing and funding, even as they embraced right-wing economics - when an irreversible transformation of British politics was in their hands.

But that moment has passed. How would such a party even launch in the present climate and who could stand for them as a candidate?

The only practical route to such a party would be to rip the Labour Party in two, perhaps with some sort of agreement in place, at least in the short term, to not stand against each other - a possibility even Owen Jones has acknowledged.

The time when this might be a realistic possibility is not now, but in the aftermath of the next election if Labour do not beat the Conservatives. Would those who are anti-Corbyn leave or use the opportunity to topple him?

Whether to stand or walk is a dilemma the so-called centrists have been wrestling with. So far they have favoured staying and fighting. But with the strength of Labour's left-wing - pushing Corbyn to two leadership elections and gaining control of the party - if power isn't a prospect, then maybe the so-called centrists will see exiting as their only way to pursue their electoral agenda.

It has to be noted that new parties have little luck on the British political scene. The anti-EU movement had more success out of Parliament than breaking into it. Ripping current MPs and their seats from current parties, en masse, would increase the chance of success.

So another possibility, that might have more pull with 'moderate' Conservatives, would be for a party to launch in the aftermath of the election if Labour win only a minority government - but with more seats and votes than the Tories.

In that scenario, a new party would be able to prey on the opportunism of MPs on all sides of the House amid what would be seen as a very unstable impasse, with the Conservative Party humbled but Corbynism unable to deliver a majority.

However, there would seem to be little inspiring about a party of opportunists assembling to break an impasse. Would voters be grateful to them or see them as responsible leaders? And does such a 'party of the centre', a big tent Democratic Party, even have much of a vision to offer?

There is nothing convincing in any of this. It is still the view of The Alternative that - far more than a new party - we need political plurality and a Progressive Alliance fighting for a proportionally representative electoral system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spring Statement: Even with the deficit reduced, the Tories continue to sacrifice the present and future of ordinary people

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

On Tuesday, the Chancellor Philip Hammond is set to mark the end of the financial year with the government's report at the Spring Statement - and will perhaps mark the near elimination of the budget deficit.

This month has already seen his predecessor and former boss, George Osborne and David Cameron respectively, pat each other on the back for setting in motion the policy of wiping out the deficit that Hammond has overseen in it's latter stages.

With the deficit is reduced, and a bumper year of tax receipts as well, surely austerity can be eased now? No, is the answer from the Chancellor. There will be no new spending because there is still a debt to pay off. So says the Chancellor.

As a result, the Spring Statement is set to be a plain response to the Office of Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) biannual forecast - and will likely be taken as an opportunity for the Conservative government to revel a little. However, Hammond is expected to be as cautious as ever.

In 2013, then Prime Minister Cameron told the gold plated, black tie, Lord Mayor's Banquet that austerity should become a permanent feature for ever - to produce a 'leaner' and 'more efficient' state that could be afforded in the long term.

That isn't good enough for the worst off. As with the closing of the coal mines in the 1980s, austerity is slashing the state and gambling on the private sector picking up the slack - and perhaps the pieces of those people whose lives were shattered and were left to fend for themselves.

Yet the Conservatives double-down on austerity every time - even when their doesn't really chime well with reality. For instance, the current budget has largely been in balance - taking day-to-day spending against tax revenues - for years. And the national debt is not the product of reckless public spending, but of quantitative easing (nationalising huge corporate financial debt to save the banks) and borrowing to invest in the future.

However, the Conservatives have pursued balancing spending both for the present and for the future against current receipts. They have managed to nearly eliminate this definition of the deficit - but they have done so on the backs of the poor, sacrificing their present and the future for their children in the process.

Squeezing both present and future spending into today's tax receipts makes today harder for the worst off, while hurting our ability to lay the ground ready for the future - especially since borrowing for long term infrastructure investment is so efficient.

The present fiscal situation is not exactly a resounding success story either. The Conservative plan is long beyond it's target year and still borrowing around £40bn a year for investment. And, while growth has helped, it is a very minor up tick to 1.5% - which is simply less bad than thought. The same goes for productivity.

For the Chancellor, this appears to be a sign of work still to do. But there are questions that need answers. There is still a shortage of homes. A necessity for food banks. Household debt being driven by a struggle to afford even necessities.

The Chancellor is flying in the face of opinion by pursuing debt reduction over ending austerity. Economic growth has been strangled and the UK national debt is not proving to be very worrying to anyone. He has room to manoeuvre.

But Hammond is the model of a fiscal conservative. He wants rid of the debt and to put something aside for a rainy day. That means another £40bn or more is still to be cut from public spending - either through budget cuts or raised in taxes.

At the weekend came the news that around a £1bn went unspent from the housing and local government budgets - which was ostensibly for building affordable homes - and was recouped by the treasury.

While there are people asking why was this money not spent and if it will it be reinvested in building affordable homes, the reality is that it simply be squirrelled away for the rainy day fund.

It is telling, perhaps, that the Chancellor and the Government don't seem to see this as a rainy day - perhaps looking gloomily ahead to the impact of Brexit? But there are many people out there in the real world who may very well disagree.

It is understandable to rule out major changes to taxation and rules - the IFS were among those recommending it stop. Doing so twice a year is a lot to keep up with. However, no one struggling under the burden of austerity is looking for a complicated readjustment of fiscal rules and tax brackets.

For those who have carried the burden of getting to this point, they want a little more support. A little more investment, or cheap credit, that could create a few more opportunities. Some surety of a roof over their heads and a means of putting food on the table. Care they can rely on when they're ill or retire. None of this should be considered too much to ask.

Wellbeing has been forgotten in the drive to improve employment statistics

Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

As we approach eight years of Conservative government, the impact of their time in government is becoming clearer. If we judge a society by the wellbeing of it's poorest members, the Conservatives have fallen short.

Despite low unemployment and a real terms rise in household incomes - about £600 a year between 2007/8 and 2015/16 - the poorest have not seen the benefit, caught beneath the weight of the rising cost of living and Conservative cuts to benefits and tax credits.

As we wrote in October, you can't count on increasing employment alone to improve people's wellbeing - especially if the work available is precarious, with insecure pay and hours.

Last week, Resolution Foundation released a report looking at how employment had changed over the last twenty years. It pointed out that there has been a shift among working people, on the lowest incomes, towards lower hours and part-time employment.

Resolution described this shift as, in part, unwelcome and involuntary - with a quarter of working class people wanting more hours. The squeeze on working hours is not being helped by the increasingly precarious, non-standard form of hours worked.

This situation is coinciding with the real terms increase in earnings being offset by several forces: the rising cost of housing, the rising cost of energy and the rise in households servicing growing debt.

With wage growth lagging behind consumer price rises, the cost of living is putting a great deal of pressure on the least well-off households. The Conservative drive to clamp down on welfare and drive people into work has not delivered greater wellbeing.

For seven and a half years, the Conservative approach has been steady as she goes. Even a change of Prime Minister and Chancellor has not led to a change of plan. The evidence shows that, for the wellbeing of the poorest, this needs to change.

First of all, there is a need to address the punitive impact of welfare reforms - that will see the incomes of the poorest fall 10% by 2021-22 compared to 2010. Work is not paying.

Consider: how does the government expect a household that struggles to stay afloat on a precarious income - juggling high rent and servicing debt - with no extra for savings, to meet it's needs when a job if lost and they're faced with a five week benefits application waiting period? Answer: More debt.

Second, the cost of living must be tackled. We need cheaper energy and cheaper rent. How this will be achieved in the long run - whether by community-owned services to breach the energy monopoly and an expansion of social housing and a living rent, or through increased market competition - in the short term they government action.

And third, bound to the first two, a concerted effort must be made to address the growth of household debt. Debts caused by living costs, mostly rent, are a damning indictment of the failure to make work pay - debts that only increase when help is needed most.

The least well off are being crushed and trapped under Tory policies, living with growing anxiety and precarity. Wellbeing is suffering to no discernible end. That is the tale of eight years of Conservative government.

Last year, May let Brexit overshadow much bigger priorities - that can't continue in 2018

Theresa May's government scraped through 2017. After so very nearly sinking themselves with an unnecessary and opportunistic election, the May Ministry survived a number of crises and scandals to make it into 2018.

However, all of that minority government firefighting leaves little time for governing - and what little time the May government had was gobbled up by Brexit. In 2018, it seems likely that this pattern will continue and Brexit will deny sorely needed attention to far more pressing matters.

The government made it clear this was how things would be when they announced their unambitious Queens Speech, with their pledges now just watered down versions of their manifesto and spread thin over two years - so the government could focus on Brexit.

Even those pledges that did survive have made little progress.

The proposed Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill has yet to make it's appearance - while a few elements are cropping up in other bills, like issues affecting tenancy. The draft Tenant Fees Bill was only published in November, with the Committee of Communities and Local Government still gathering evidence.

Both of these will have to wait until 2018 is well underway before they see action and - the Tenant Fees Bill in particular - is going to be a hit with a lot of lobbying before it reaches its final form. It already largely conforms to present market standards that align far more landlords interests than tenants.

Promises on electric cars made it into the cutdown Queen's Speech, but only translated into £500m for charging points in the budget. A High Speed 2 rail pledge followed on the heels of an announcement to cut rail works plans for Wales and the North. Electrification estimates tripled in cost from £900mn to £2.8bn, so were pushed back, and are now cancelled. They were not offset by the less than £2bn in the budget to be split between the transport budgets of six city regions.

Repeated promises of action on homebuilding have born little fruit. The budget offered little but work arounds and tweaks, all attempts to nudge the housing sector rather than take action. It's unlikely anyone will be holding their breath that this will change in 2018.

Even the government's deeply prioritised Brexit made slow progress.

Negotiations were a tortuous embarrassment, with the government talking itself in circles of redlines - that could do nothing to change the fact that, despite having ruled out accepting the EU's position, they had little option other than to accept it.

And was only the preliminaries, getting the UK government to honour its word and its commitments. Concerns will be high as the UK government moves into the next phase, which includes trying to push through the Brexit Bills - domestic elements of the exit process.

Concern is rooted in the unending determination of the government to limit oversight and transparency in everything they do. May's team particularly want a free hand to negotiate future trade deals, awakening fears of shady deals with human rights abusers that undercut basic standards of workers' rights and quality of goods.

Fears have not been assuaged by the obvious lack of planning. Are there impact studies, or not? The government has gone out of their way to avoid reassuring anyone with any kind of data or fact.

One of the few part of the government's plans for post-Brexit to have been discussed was for agriculture post-Brexit - previewed over the Christmas-New Year week by Michael Gove. He made a pledge of funds to incentivise environmentally friendly land management, but concerns remain over trade deals undermining farmers.

The Tories made a huge mistake becoming embroiled in Brexit and Theresa May doubled down on it. Now, important domestic matters have been deprioritised. A second consecutive winter of the NHS in crisis should be considered an omen of what to expect in public services in the year ahead.

While the Tories have been playing at being 'statesmen', pouring their attention into Brexit - a policy that is epochal for all the wrong reasons - they have let domestic matters slide into chaos.

The NHS is cash starved and stretched beyond capacity and the best that the government was able to say was that the tens of thousands of cancelled operations 'were all part of the plan'. What kind of planning is that? Why would that be reassuring?

It is worth remembering that while Churchill led Britain through the war and the Tories held the outward-looking Great Offices of State, they lost the election held at the war's end. They were beaten by Clement Atlee and Labour, who had busied themselves on the Home Front - in the Home Affairs Ministry, with Agriculture and Fisheries, Education, Fuel, Labour, Pensions and the Board of Trade.

It is a dangerous move for any government to get caught playing statesman and forget to tend to the mundane matters of governing.

Housing, healthcare, welfare. All of these matters need determined attention in 2018 - and all of them are intricately entwined with rights, conditions and pay in the workplace. Domestically, Britain has become an anxious and precarious place under the Tories' idle supervision. How much longer can a blind eye be tolerated?