No surprises

Yesterday's student protest marked the end of public acquiescence to the coalition's programme of spending cuts - cuts that have been condemned as unfair in independent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Comparisons with the Poll Tax protests have been made, and they hold some weight. The anger of ordinary people has bubbled to the surface in dramatic fashion. People are realising that we are not all in this together.

There is a huge difference between advocating the destruction of property, and accepting the inevitability that it will occur. Yesterday's violence was predictable given the public anger over the Lib Dems' cynical U-turn on an explicit pre-election pledge.

We must not allow the government to turn this into a debate about public disorder. This is a debate about a government reversing some of the twentieth century's hardest-won gains in social mobility. It is a debate about a rich political aristocracy entrenching the already shameful record of inequality in the United Kingdom.

Tories declare war on the poor

No rowing back on the housing benefit cut, says David Cameron. No rowing back on pricing the poor out of university either, I'll bet.

And no rowing back on any of the other tax and benefit changes in the comprehensive spending review, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies said were "regressive rather than progressive across most of the income distribution."

For those who said there was no difference between New Labour and a Tory administration, this is a harsh lesson in political ideology. These policies, when taken as a whole, represent nothing less than a war on the poor.

Depending on which Conservative you speak to, barring the poor from universities and causing a mass migration of working class families from our cities are either necessary evils, or positively desirable.

And however bad it is, they say, it simply has to be done to tackle the deficit.

So where are the 'painful but necessary' tax rises? Why are the CBI, the Insitute of Directors and the British Bankers' Association not up in arms at being asked to make their contribution?

Because they know they are getting off lightly. They are keeping busy keeping their heads down.

Standing up to vested interests is hard work, and this government simply does not have the political will to do it. Instead, they have declared war on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society in the laziest most despicable way imaginable.

First thoughts on the CSR

As analysts start number-crunching the Comprehensive Spending Review to see who really suffers, it is worth noting which departments the coalition has chosen to target for cuts - and which have been spared the worst.

Osborne gave road building schemes the go-ahead, but revealed that the cap on rail fares is to rise by 3% above inflation. Good news for the motoring lobby, bad for the rest of us.

Following terse negotiations with Liam Fox, defence spending is to be cut by a comparatively low 8%. If only Iain Duncan-Smith had fought as hard. The welfare budget, on which thousands of poor families depend, is to be cut by a huge £7bn.

And social housing rents will rise to 80-90% of the market rate, which comes very close to defeating the object of social housing entirely.

The Conservatives simply do not have the political will to conduct these difficult cuts in a fair way, and the Lib Dems simply do not have the clout to put the brakes on. These are Tory economic plans pure and simple.

A choice that means something

The situation is bad. A rightwing Tory government is dismantling the welfare state, and their savage spending cuts will hurt the poorest the most.

A new higher education funding policy is being drafted, designed to fulfil the Conservatives' secret desire to reduce student numbers by pricing poor people out of universities.

And we have been subjected to the depressing spectacle of the Lib Dems' U-turn on tuition fees which has exposed Nick Clegg's "new politics" as a naked electoral gambit.

But in one key way, things are better than they have been in some time. For the first time in over 15 years, everything is to play for - and the electorate are being offered a genuine choice in the direction of British society and economics.

On the one hand, we have a small-state vision from Cameron's Tories. Here we are being offered an American-style economic model where the winner takes it all, and the losers lose big time.

On the other hand, Ed Miliband's resurgent Labour Party is offering a genuine departure from neoliberal economic thinking. Labour is - for the first time in years - openly defending a social model where elected government ensures a fair game for everyone.

But the election is five years away. In the meantime, it is the responsibility of progressives of every colour to ensure that any damage done to the UK in the intervening period is mitigated and reversible. This duty falls largely to the Liberal Democrats.

The Osborne Book of Economics

Yesterday George Osborne addressed the Tory party conference, asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be from financial markets to a change of course on the economy - and to a sudden adoption of Ed Miliband's economic strategy.

He painted a picture of a doomed society. A post-apocalyptic nightmare world, where a debt-jackboot repeatedly stamps on the face of the British people forever.

Osborne mocked Labour's economic record with a tone that suggests he thinks the public respects his opinion. Does he assume his appointment as chancellor has in some way imbued him with a reputation for economic competence?

In reality he has an impeccable record of making exactly the wrong calls on the economy.

During the boom years, with Blair in Number 10 and Brown next door, Osborne fell in line with the then current economic thinking. Along with Cameron, he was a cheerleader for New Labour's programme of deregulation and light-touch governance. And look where that got us.

When the credit crunch took hold, the Conservatives were practically alone on the world stage in opposing government intervention to shore up the global economy. While Gordon Brown was being celebrated internationally for his pragmatism, Osborne was handicapped by ideology and offered no coherent alternative strategy.

And now he is chancellor. Why, nobody really knows. Perhaps in trying to ape New Labour's electoral success, Cameron felt he needed his very own unelectable liability in No 11.

So as the battle to set the terms of the debate gets nastier, and the 'Red Ed' slurs are deployed to paper over the gaping cracks in the coalition's economic strategy, don't forget to check the historical record. Ask yourself exactly what qualifies this former speech writer for William Hague to be the mastermind of the UK's economic programme for the next five years. And be afraid. Be absolutely terrified.

Clegg's gambit

Nick Clegg told us fixed term parliaments would prevent the Prime Minister from scheduling elections according to political expediency. Is it purely coincidental that the next election will now take place in 2015, around the time the coalition's programme of cuts are due to be winding down?

The Liberal Democrats were in favour of a slower withdrawal of state support from the economy during the election campaign. Nick Clegg changed his mind around the time the coalition deal with the Tories was hammered out.

Current thinking is either that he was persuaded by the Conservatives' case once he saw the parlous state of the UK's finances (good), or that he is supporting the timetable as part of a negotiated deal with Cameron's team (bad).

But this was no mere compromise with the Tories. Clegg knows that any election before 2015 would be likely to decimate Liberal Democrat support. The economy will be in the doldrums due to a withdrawal of government support, and a hefty proportion of government debt will still be with us.

We are witnessing the spectacle of the Liberal Democrats supporting the most severe assault on the state in modern political history, not because they agree with the economics, but because it suits their electoral needs.

A journey to the right

Red Wedgie was on holiday when Tony Blair's memoirs were published last week, but did manage to catch the former PM's interview with Andrew Marr on BBC1.

Blair confirmed the suspicions of many on the left by condoning the economic strategy of the coalition, refusing to criticise Cameron's cuts, and by revealing a political ideology that has little to do with social democracy and everything to do with Thatcherism.

The only thing Blair had to say to his former campaigners, voters and defenders on the left was how we might think about adopting Thatcherite policies to get elected. Oh, and that he regretted Freedom of Information and the fox hunting ban.

So far, so smug. But the ex-PM gave the game away when he talked about New Labour.

Blair understands better than anyone that an entity like New Labour is destined for electoral success because it adopts the social and economic programme of the opposition. It simultaneously offers opposition voters an alternative to their natural party, while depriving its own grass roots of any viable electoral alternative.

The only problem, as Labour now appear to be realising, is that such an entity has no reason to exist other than to win elections.

The candidates for the Labour leadership are making all the right noises to appeal for party members' votes. Let's hope they genuinely understand that Labour is irrelevant unless it dedicates itself to dismantling social and economic inequality, and rebuilding society in a fairer way.

Comfort zone or centre ground?

The Labour leadership contest got a bit more personal today when David Miliband appeared to launch a veiled attack on his brother Ed's campaign platform. In an article for today's Times, David has decided to deploy that old New Labour warning - no retreat to the comfort zone.

The legacy of New Labour is just how far the definition of the 'comfort zone' has changed. Labour's modernisation - a process that started with the expulsion of the militant tendency in the 1980s - seems to have led to criticism of anyone openly professing social democratic views.

David Miliband's comments about his brother's leadership campaign appear to be doing just that. Ed's platform is perfectly coherent: in seeking to reach out to the centre ground, Labour ignored many sensible - and potentially electorally popular - policy suggestions from its own grassroots.

Unreasonable? David seems to think so: "I want to look at the circumstances outside our tent, and how we should respond ... Opposition is necessary but insufficient. At worse it can take us back into our comfort zone – and our pantomime role in politics."

This is the result of a wider campaign from some within Labour to try to restore the reputation of Blair's 'centre ground' strategy at the crucial moment where pursuing such an agenda would be electoral suicide.

In last Saturday's Observer, Nick Cohen wrote an astonishingly audacious comment piece which appeared to label the entire body of Tony Blair's detractors as conspiracy theorists and crackpots: "Never forget that Blair is the most skilful politician in modern British history. Look at how he is pushing his opponents into the corner reserved for crackpots - not that they need much of a shove."

In his efforts at rehabilitation, Cohen attempts to play down the fact that Blair was an electoral liability for Labour - attaining levels of unpopularity unmatched during Brown's tenure as Prime Minister. One can only imagine the electoral carnage that would have ensued if Blair had persisted in No 10 until the 2005 general election.

The Labour leadership election appears to have narrowed to a two-horse race, and the differences between the Miliband brothers is less significant than is imagined. The important issue is what strategy the eventual leader will pursue.

Labour is at a cross roads. It can retreat to the real comfort of New Labour, or it can set about making a popular case for Social Democracy in the United Kingdom. If the party decides to pursue the former strategy it must be careful - moderate Social Democrats are unlikely to tolerate another 13 years of being hidden away like an awkward family secret.

Open, honest, and accountable?

The coalition government promised to shame Labour by being more open, honest, and accountable. But news-junkies regularly tuning in to Newsnight may have noticed a recurrent failure by the coalition to provide spokespeople for the BBC's flagship current affairs programme - especially when it comes to stories which reflect badly on the government.

On Wednesday 18 August, Kirsty Wark told us that nobody from the coalition was available to answer questions about proposed cuts to universal benefits and splits in the Conservative party over welfare reform. It was left to Michael Crick to do all the talking.

Again, on Thursday, no minister was available to answer questions from Laura Kuenssberg about how the coalition's education policies are expected to assist social mobility. That's right - nobody from the Department for Education was available to comment on Newsnight on the day A-level results were announced.

And again on Friday - my-oh-my, the government must be busy - no minister from the Department for Transport was available to explain how removing speed cameras from our roads is expected to impact on road safety. You would have expected the coalition to mount an energetic defence of their approach, rather than leaving it to controversial anti-speed camera agitators, Safe Speed.

Could this be further evidence to support claims of government hostility towards the BBC?

Going mobile

Arch-Blairite ex-cabinet minister Alan Milburn is to join the coalition government as a social mobility tsar, and in doing so is set to illustrate why the New Labour project foundered and eventually failed.

In aiding and abetting the most economically right-wing government since the 80s, Milburn is crossing the line between pragmatism and complete ideological blindness.

His readiness to participate in a government which is so hostile to the idea of the state as an enabler for social mobility shows why the Blairites missed the point - and illustrates why they presided over a growth in inequality over 13 years.

When Peter Mandelson famously said "we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, as long as they pay their taxes", he proved that Labour were in denial about the relationship between mobility and equality. Less equal societies are less fluid. If you want to help people change their social circumstances, you need the courage to use progressive taxation to stop the emergence of a wealthy elite.

This conclusion is off-the-table when it comes to Milburn's forthcoming work for the coalition. As Labour renews itself in opposition, it must not make the same mistake. In government it had a mandate to reverse the galloping increase in social inequality and division, but it chose to retreat to the real Labour comfort zone: do what the Tories would do, but more slowly.

When people voted in the 1997 and 2010 general elections, they voted for change. It is a harsh irony of our political system that in both cases - just when a change was desperately required - they got more of the same.

Double-dipping

The Bank of England again revised its growth predictions down today - further evidence that withdrawing state support from the economy will damage the prospects for a recovery in the United Kingdom.

The main body of cuts may not yet have bitten, but there have already been significant reductions in public sector recruitment and capital spending.

With Vince Cable now refusing to rule out the "double-dip" recession Gordon Brown warned us about before the election, the outlook is not promising. History will be kinder to Brown than the British press has been, at least with regards to his reputation as Chancellor.

However the Tory/Lib Dem government tries to spin it, this recession is global. It is not the fault of Labour's economic policies - policies that were supported by the Conservatives for over ten years.

George Osborne has a significantly weaker economic record. History will be very unkind, and so will the electorate.

Can sacrificing AV be justified to protect the poorest?

With the AV referendum date confirmed, pub and dinner party conversations have turned to the following question: Should I vote against electoral reform to destabilise the coalition, even though I believe reform is necessary?

Cynical, I know - but not unreasonable. Politics is give and take (or give and give, in the case of the Lib Dems in the current government). Millions will suffer as a result the unprecedented ideological economic programme of this government, and sacrificing much needed electoral reform to protect the interests of the poorest in society is worth considering very seriously.

If AV is rejected at referendum, goes the argument, the Lib Dems will despair. They will have sold their principles for nothing, and will begin to agitate. They will fragment under the weight of the savage economic measures being carried out in their name, and eventually the coalition will split. There will be a new general election, which Labour will be able capitalise on as the party of government spending.

All well and good - and if this was the guaranteed outcome, it may be worth considering. There will be many in Labour who support this strategy, and there are already moves by some to renege on their former manifesto commitment to electoral reform by quibbling over boundary changes.

The real outcome of the AV referendum is much more difficult to predict, however. There is a huge degree of chaos in the system that makes the above analysis of cause and effect look highly questionable. Here are just a few of the factors which confuse the argument.

The coalition government is split on the right as well as on the left. A 'yes' vote in the AV referendum may well cause a similar fragmentation of coalition support in the Conservatives. Powerful backbenchers like John Redwood would start to question how their leadership was outfoxed on electoral reform, and they could eventually destabilise the coalition by demanding compensatory concessions. This would put further strain on the bond with the Lib Dems, who might feel that they have sacrificed enough already.

Another factor to consider is that the Lib Dems may split the coalition even if they get their way on AV. If a change to the voting system is passed, they will have got what they wanted - and there may be little to sustain their interest in continuing in the coalition. The left of the Liberal Democrats will certainly be less prepared to suffer constant criticism and loss of public support just to help their coalition partners carry out ideological economic reforms.

Conversely, there may be no appetite amongst Lib Dems to leave the coalition even if they fail to secure electoral reform. The party is itself a coalition of social liberal migrants from the other two parties, and contains a very large number of economic right-wingers. We are learning the hard way that they are not the natural party of the progressive left they have claimed, and that many Lib Dems actively support the cuts to public services. To paraphrase Tony Blair: it may be worse than that, they may actually believe it.

And finally, we don't yet know what kind of party Labour will be when the referendum is held. The leadership election could produce any number of different kinds of Labour Party. And if we are weighing the suffering of our poorest citizens against the prospect of electoral reform, we need to know that Labour will not conduct Conservative-lite economic reforms themselves. Alistair Darling's warning of proposed Thatcherite spending cuts are not worth sacrificing electoral reform for. In order to justify our voting against AV, Labour would need to offer assurances that cuts would be much slower and better targeted, and that a much greater emphasis would be placed on taxation to cut the deficit.

With so many complex and unpredictable factors in play, it is impossible to say which referendum outcome will produce which result. In which case, the safest way to vote is on the issue itself. FPP disenfranchises millions in safe seats across the country, leading to a political debate skewed in favour of a handful of natural conservatives in swing seats. This cannot be allowed to continue if we are to secure the future of Social Democracy in the United Kingdom.

The new green politics

Remember David Cameron's attempt to re-invent the Tories as a modern party of the environment when he first became Conservative leader in 2005? Well, he's in government now.

The coalition is set to dismantle the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), the body charged with advising government on how they can save energy.

As well as reducing waste and pollution, the SDC actually saves the government money. However, this has not been enough to protect it from the bacchanalian social bonfire which is giving Tory backbenchers such joy at the moment.

But there's no need to worry, because Tories care about the environment really. Look, they've got a tree as their logo!

Big Society

The “Big Society” cropped up again at Prime Minister’s Questions today, and Cameron attacked Labour for their dismissive attitude towards what passes for the coalition government's new overarching philosophy.

The State ‘crowds out’ social participation, say the Tories and Lib Dems. Remove the State, and business and the voluntary sector will fill the void – and encourage social cohesion and a sense of community into the bargain.

“We will do everything we can to help what used to be called the ‘third sector’, rather condescendingly, but I believe is the ‘first sector’ – and that is the excellent charities, voluntary organisations, and social enterprises that do so much for our country,” said Cameron.

The trouble with the “Big Society” philosophy is this: most voluntary sector workers will tell you that charity often represents a last ditch effort to plug the gap where government and markets have failed – and that the State should be providing these services, funded from general taxation.

How does the coalition expect to convince voluntary organisations to take up the slack as government retreats, when most charity workers want government to do more not less?

The coalition has offered no evidence to show that voluntary organisations will fill the void. They are already taking what most economists agree is a massive gamble by saying that the private sector will make up for lost jobs in the public sector. Now we are seeing a similar leap of faith in social policy.

Their economic programme is likely to leave millions unemployed, and their social programme will leave a new underclass with nowhere to turn. Love-bombing the voluntary sector is merely a strategy to create cover while the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats turn their backs on the poorest.

Tory tactics

Don't be fooled: the coalition government's request for departments to draw up plans for 40% cuts is more than just a softening-up exercise to prepare us for the eventual settlement. It is part of a wider scaremongering PR strategy designed to create a narrative that blames Labour profligacy for a massive economic collapse.

To be clear, we are not Greece, and Labour overspending on public services did not destroy the economy. Any rational analysis will conclude that accusations of Labour fiscal mismanagement are a distraction from the glaring truth - this was an economic collapse caused by the Thatcherite settlement of light-touch regulation in the financial sector.

We desperately needed a government prepared to address this, but through an electoral mishap we have been given the opposite.

Labour needs to shoulder blame for continuing the laissez-faire economic approach set out by the Tories in the 1980s. But the coalition is working very hard to blame the deficit on Labour spending, and in doing so they are trying to call into question the entire philosophy of tax and spend.

In supporting this Tory narrative, the Lib Dems are undoing all of Charles Kennedy's hard work in positioning his party to the left of New Labour. Let's hope it doesn't take Liberals too long to realize that Nick Clegg is compromising far too much for power.

They have chosen as their leader their very own Tony Blair - except without the electoral popularity.

Tough on crime, soft on the causes

In 2004 Tony Blair made a speech blaming the "1960s liberal consensus" for increases in crime. His announcement represented a key element of New Labour's media and communications strategy - appear tough on crime, and maintain good relations with the right-wing media.

This "tough on crime" stance - and the similar stance adopted by the previous Tory government - contributed towards a huge increase in the prison population. Frustratingly, Labour's Blairite law and order policies were implemented in the face of mounting evidence suggesting that, for many offenders, prison was the worst option.

When Blair made his "liberal consensus" speech in 2004, numerous studies had already concluded that prison can increase the likelihood of re-offending. Inmates frequently find themselves unemployed, homeless, or addicted to drugs on leaving prison - factors which are likely to fuel further criminal acts.

Yesterday Kenneth Clarke announced the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government's new approach to law and order. To the horror of many progressives he appears to be positioning the alliance to the left of Labour on crime and anti-social behaviour.

"We need ... an intelligent and transparent approach to sentencing that targets the causes of reoffending, so making our communities safer and better places to live", said Clarke.

Progressives will wonder how Labour have allowed themselves to be outflanked on the left on law and order. They will ask how Labour failed to make a strong case for reform of the criminal justice system to put rehabilitation at its heart.

The current Labour leadership contest must be seen as an opportunity to restore progressive values to the party's policy on law and order.

Labour must also resist the temptation to attack the coalition government with accusations that they are soft on crime. The Tory/Lib Dem policy is weak because of its dependence on hollow Big Society mumbo-jumbo. It can be attacked without the assistance of Jack Straw and his recent "prison works" comment piece in the Daily Mail.

Labour must change tack on law and order, and realize that strategies developed prior to 1997 will not be effective against this government. Modern Britain is rather fond of the 1960s liberal consensus, and wants to see an end to the vindictive, populist approach of the New Labour Home Secretaries.

Hunt's gaffe

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has apologised for saying that fan violence played a part in the Hillsborough disaster.

Politicians are fallible, and heard in context it is obvious that the comment was a thoughtless aside.

However, it does highlight a general ignorance and lack of interest in the North of England on the part of some Tory MPs, and echoes Boris Johnson's Liverpool gaffe of a few years ago.

The comments will do little to persuade regions in the North - which were not convinced by the Conservatives at the general election - that the party represents them or understands their concerns.

Vote for Christmas!

The coalition government is to write to public sector workers asking for ways to save public money. Here's a suggestion to get us started: Why not write a handful of letters to their elected representatives in the trade unions, instead of six million letters to each individual member?

The government is borrowing a tactic from public sector managers. Consulting directly with staff can be justified as a means to really engage with workers - it just so happens to exclude the trade unions, who are nominated by public sector staff to represent them in discussions.

Why do some people find the concept of collective bargaining so difficult to understand? In law, and in parliamentary democracy, we have no difficulty in understanding the idea that people can nominate another to speak on their behalf. When it comes to industrial relations, however, public sector managers – and now the government – reserve the right to speak to whoever is convenient.

And consulting staff directly will be very convenient indeed for the coalition government. It will allow them to pick and choose anecdotal examples to justify their strategy of cuts, using different views scattered across the workforce to validate a massive programme of cuts and redundancies. It is very similar to the strategy they are already using in welfare, where they are using the complaints of working families about unfairness in the benefit system to justify cutting their entitlements.

They will try to avoid consulting the unions about cuts because they know they will get a response they don’t want to hear: Why don’t you address the deficit with a greater emphasis on taxation, and why are you gambling with the economy and our members’ lives by cutting so quickly and deeply?

I suspect this is what the majority of public sector workers will really think. So if it is genuinely interested in consultation, the government can save itself a lot of time - and money.

New politics

So the big headline from the Tory "emergency budget" is that VAT is to rise, and it's time for the Lib Dems to look very sheepish indeed. They campaigned against a Tory VAT rise, and now they are facilitating it.

As anticipated, it appears savings will be made almost entirely through public spending cuts. This is in spite of Osborne's very rare admission during the budget speech that this crisis was created in the banking sector.

Conservatives don't know any better. But many Lib Dems will be asking how a budget can be called fair when poor people who are dependent on public services appear to be paying for a crisis caused by irresponsibility in the banking sector.

Nick Clegg promised us a new politics. I suspect many of his supporters will now be wishing for a return to the old.

Nick Clegg's welfare safety net

The Tories say that spending on public services for people who don't depend on them is unsustainable, and that we need to change our expectations of what the State is supposed to do.

Now the Conservatives and Lib Dems are shackled together in coalition, how will this Tory philosophy square with the Liberal Democrats' stated commitment to public services for all? Here are a few extracts from the preamble to the Lib Dem Federal Constitution:

"We promote human rights and open government, a sustainable economy which serves genuine need, public services of the highest quality."

"We support the widest possible distribution of wealth and promote the rights of all citizens to social provision."

"We seek to make public services responsive to the people they serve, to encourage variety and innovation within them and to make them available on equal terms to all."

It is difficult to see how grassroots Lib Dems will swallow public service cuts in the longer term, and party activists should question whether they entered politics to assist the Tories in permanently reducing the size and function of the welfare state.

Some party grandees are rumoured to be very unhappy with today's announcements, including former leader Charles Kennedy. Kennedy remains very popular with party members, and his unease will be echoed by the Lib Dem grassroots.

They are not in denial about the need for cuts. Nor are they frightened of making difficult decisions. What concerns them is the suspicion that they are aiding and abetting a Tory assault on the long-term prospects for social democracy in the United Kingdom.

Excuses, excuses...

In the last fortnight it's become obvious that the Lib-Con coalition, led by the Tories, are using the deficit as an excuse to radically re-balance the economy. For this they have no mandate, and in doing so they are flying in the face of the settled public will for an interventionist state and well-funded public services.

The election result was a public expression of dissatisfaction with a stale 13-year-old Labour government. It was not in any sense a mandate for the Tories - who failed to secure a majority - to dismantle the welfare state.

To successfully blame this economic crisis on public service spending has been an act of breathtaking political sleight-of-hand on the part of Cameron's PR team - led by the controversial Andy Coulson, who makes Alistair Campbell look like some kind of moral sage.

Furthermore, we are not "in this together" if the deficit is being tackled almost entirely through public service cuts, which disproportionately target the poor and regions outside of the South East.

To summarise: the economic situation was caused by irresponsibility in the city, not profligacy in public spending; this government has no mandate to re-balance the economy; and David Cameron looks like the comedy theatre mask.