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.