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.