Steven Rose

A year or so ago, it wasn't uncommon to hear the opinion that while Corbyn's Labour may be valuable in opposition, it was not a party for governing. In recent days, Corbyn and his team have confirmed that diagnosis. For the first time in British history, Government has been found in contempt of Parliament. Crucial matters of the UK constitution have been withdrawn from consideration by Parliament because Government no longer commands a majority. All other parties in Parliament have called for a vote of no confidence in the government, and have been hoping that Corbyn would show leadership in this regard. Here was the opportunity to seize control of both Government and of the Brexit process, and end this ridiculous impasse by asking the UK what vision they have for their future. Were Corbyn to announce he was seeking a vote of no confidence in the government , it  seems incredibly likely that such a move would have commanded enough support to pursue this course. Bu

Politicians and political commentators are eager to focus on the consequences of tax changes - or constitution altering deals - on a household's income, not averse to seizing the initiative in debate on sums on the order of a few hundred pounds per year. And they should be. These few hundreds can be very important in personal budgeting, and in significantly improving or diminishing the standard of living for those most vulnerable in society. It's also a convenient vehicle for outlining key ideological differences between parties and describing to the electorate the party's vision for the distribution of responsibilities among society and the role the state should take. This seemingly stands in great contrast to matters like measuring inflation, which one might assume is devoid of areas of debate. Distinctions between RPI, CPI, and CPIh are not matters of great public concern, because it seems unreasonable to suggest that these distinctions are being exploited for pol

While we're all focusing our attention on Brexit, we must also make sure we're aware of our domestic affairs, and in fact need to be more aware of where blame lays for changes to our region. We should be able to identify the culprits of our region's problems, and the people making the political decisions, and whether we think they're necessary. It is a Tory Government decision to de-fund the north. Austerity is a political choice that was made by this Government, and these numbers show that the north has been suffering the brunt of these so that more prosperous regions, regions where people are already doing better off, and where life expectancy and education outcome is already better, can see increases in public spending, and these increases show that the de-funding of the public sector that the north has seen are not necessary. The North has seen a drop in public spending of 3.4%, worth £6.3 billion, compared to an increase in the South of 2%, worth £3.2 bill

Ben Houchen - Tees Valley mayor - and his cabinet have secured £20 million grant for the purpose of increasing the capacity of Middlesbrough Train station. This is a worthwhile investment, and comes with the ambition of a direct line to London. Connectivity is key to increasing productivity and improving our economy, both locally and nationally, and improving the lives of the population, and it's a pleasant change of pace to see the North secure infrastructure investment. However it is unclear how much this investment will benefit the people of Middlesbrough, and indeed how a direct line to London could improve lives. If this infrastructure was available to the wider public then there would be no question, but rail transport is by no means available to the wider public. The cost of rail travel is prohibitive - one only has to look at the cost to get from Middlesbrough to Manchester to grimace at the potential cost of a train from Middlesbrough to London - and it's becomi

[Originally published at steven.rose.postach.io on 25/09/18.] The case for a second referendum on leaving the EU is compelling. For one thing, it's beginning to seem like the case for such a referendum will eventually become an irrelevant question. When the mechanism of decision making that is the British parliament fails to make a decision - the parliamentary arithmetic favouring no vision of Brexit or otherwise - the question will still loom ominously, at which point it is likely that the government will see fit to throw the decision back to the public. It's not very clear how else such an impasse could be resolved. But even on its own merits, the idea is attractive. The question now, at last, could be clear. The first referendum was not an example of democracy in action. The question was ill-posed, and served to provide the conservative government the appearance of a mandate, and the false appearance of acting on behalf of the people's mandate, without this ma