Half Term Report: Must do better

The Commons continue to play a bigger role, but mostly because the government remains disengaged from domestic matters. At the February half term break, Ministers will return to their constituencies with report cards that read: must do better.

Is a government technically doing a bad job if it isn't doing anything at all? This is a pertinent question as Parliament heads into the February half term recess. That's because it's hard to report on how on the government is handling it's main job - that is, managing the legislative programme - when it doesn't seem to have one.

Back in January our preview of 2018 pointed out that last year, little of the government's legislative programme made any progress. Some was dropped, some was delayed, some disappeared into consultation never to be seen again.

So far, 2018 hasn't been much better. Theresa May's recent, and criticised, announcement of a new electoral offence of Intimidation received much fanfare - but turned out to only be a pledge to consult on the recommendations of a committee report.

A promised update to domestic violence legislation, touted last year in the Queen's Speech, has still yet to appear - despite a similar bill passing the Scottish Parliament in less than a year with bipartisan support.

What about the policies already passed? Those being overseen by ministers either already in place or being implementation? In short, the core elements of the Conservative agenda are besieged as major Tory policies are failing on all sides.

The government's restrictions on Personal Independence Payments for those with mental health conditions have been successfully challenged in court and now all claims are now under review with bigger payouts expected.

The rollout of Universal Credit has been a rolling disaster, stumbling from one mess into the next. At the end of last year the government was forced to concede ground and make some changes. Now, a committee report has questioned it's overall feasibility.

Whether the government's devolution agenda is working might be a matter of perspective. Last week a Conservative county council, Northamptonshire, effectively declared bankruptcy. Even earmarked reserves are being eaten away and council taxes are set to rise across the country.

The strain of funding poor needy neighbourhoods is shifting away from redistribution at a national level, and towards communities trying to support themselves. That might seem like a win for Conservatives uncomfortable with redistribution and what they term 'dependence'.

But it is grinding down communities that need resources for essential frontline services - and councils will know exactly were to point fingers when angry locals come knocking. It also plays right into the hands of Corbyn's pitch for a renewal of municipal socialism.

And that isn't helped by the collapse of outsourcing giant Carillion, the trouble facing other outsourcing firms like Capita, or the fact the government had to take the East Coast Mainline rail franchise away from Stagecoach, who had got their numbers wrong and were losing large amounts of money. These are all simply embarrassments for the government.

While the government seems to have largely abandoned legislating while it pours it's focus into Brexit, backbenchers and the opposition are doing their best to keep things moving forward.

In a remarkably constructive day for the Commons, two private member's bills made it through the second reading gauntlet on 19th January. There was the Fitness for Human Habitation Bill, sponsored by Labour's Karen Buck, and the Stalking Protection Bill, sponsored by Conservative Sarah Wollaston.

Layla Moran of the Liberal Democrats also made use of the final Prime Minister's Questions before the break, to promote a campaign to abolish an old law Still used to criminalise homelessness. It's a push with a good chance to gain traction, thanks to some recent controversy - such as in Bournemouth.

The opposition, as a whole, has also been very effective at forcing issues onto the agenda, with motions on matters like rail franchises and the NHS winter crisis passing. This has continued on from last year when the government stopped taking part in opposition motions - a decision for which they faced criticism even from the Speaker.

While it is good to see the Commons having an impact in political life - plurality should be at the heart of how we make the law - backbenchers picking up the slack, while the government is too busy, is not why we should be seeing it.

Is the government taking it's time? Is it seeking means other than legislation to achieve it's aims? The lack of transparency from the May Ministry makes it difficult to tell the difference between inertia and working around the limitations of a minority government.

However, one of the main arguments for having a standing government is leadership - and being seen is a necessary part of that. It is one thing for the government to give the Commons a spotlight, to let it take the lead on legislation. It is another to let it through absence and abstention.

In January, we argued that there were big issues that needed tackling. That hasn't changed. Neither has the government's lack of engagement with domestic matters. The government remains more talk than action.

When government ministers return to their constituencies for the February half term break this week, they'll do so with report cards that read: must do better.

Intimidation in Public Life: When creating new offences, care must be taken that there are no unintended consequences

On Tuesday, Theresa May used the centenary of women's suffrage to announce plans to implement a new offence named Intimidation in Public Life. The move has is based on recommendations in a report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

As the Prime Minister said in her speech, it is unsettling that vitriol towards public figures, particularly in politics, is overwhelmingly directed towards women. This has to be addressed. There's really no two ways about that.

But is a new offence, of intimidating a politician or candidate, the answer? Before creating new offences like 'Intimidation in Public Life', there needs to be careful consideration.

Are there laws that already cover this? What are we making illegal? Are we creating new problems?

Yes, free speech is all too often of recent used as a cover, a screen to ensure freedom from the consequences of speech.

And yet, remember that in 2016 a young female student was censured because an MP and a University didn't, wilfully or out of ignorance, understand a meme.

Ian Hislop, the editor of Private Eye, when speaking at a Leveson Inquiry hearing on the phone tapping scandal, said that:

"Statutory legislation is not required and most of the heinous crimes that came up and have made such a splash in front of this inquiry have already been illegal - contempt of court is illegal, phone tapping is illegal, policemen taking money is illegal - all of these things don't need a code, we already have laws for them."

It's something we need to remember when policy may be adopted as a reaction - such as to the incident at a Jacob Rees-Mogg talk at the University of the West of England, to which this announcement has been unsurprisingly strapped.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life have produced an in depth report. It makes for interesting reading. There are important recommendations to consider. One of them is that they report that the criminal law is basically fine.

They committee issues a bipartisan call for the major players - the big political parties, the police, the media - to show leadership and work together in cross-party solidarity.

In terms of legislation, the committee recommends a strictly electoral offence of intimidation and action to hold social media services liable for content posted on their platforms.

The recommendations of the committee are focused, strictly limited and lean towards better use of current tools - not least of which is the need for major bodies to challenge bad behaviour. Even their recommendation for a new offence they subject to the condition of consultation and comes across as a call for sterner sentencing when the target is a public figure.

Prime Minister Theresa May, however, has been criticised in the past for having a 'cavalier' attitude to civil rights and a well documented history for pursuing a path to public order through heavy-handed surveillance.

Unsurprisingly, her announcement is already being dissected by rights groups, such as Liberty, who are already expressing their concerns.

The report does not call for a heavy-hand. In her speech, May said that she would consult on the proposed new intimidation offence. Considered, tentative steps are appreciated. The way forward must be careful and measured. And, perhaps, even left a path untaken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what are these and other thrusts driving at?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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