Archive for the ‘Articles’ Category

As the government pushes back against criticism from the IFS, the Fawcett Society and beyond, Labour is united and ready to spring to fight for its progressive legacy of not just the last 13 years but throughout its history.

Last week’s report for the End Child Poverty campaign prepared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed what many of us were already all too aware of: George Osborne’s emergency budget will hurt the poorest the most. It’s no surprise that a budget whose headline measures included an increase in VAT, freezing child benefit and linking future increases in welfare benefits to the less generous consumer price index will be highly regressive in its effect, hitting ordinary families hard. Meanwhile, the Fawcett Society has begun legal action, arguing that the budget bears significantly more harshly on women, and now it emerges that Theresa May had warned the Treasury before the budget of the need for an equalities impact assessment, one that it was likely to fail.

Ministers are more than a little miffed at this wave of criticism, and have hit back at the IFS’s findings. Their strongest argument is that the IFS has failed to take account of the increase in employment that Ministers say will result from measures such as welfare reform and cuts in corporation tax. That, they argue, will lift more families out of poverty – yet a range of commentators, from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development to George Osborne’s own Office of Budget Responsibility cast doubt on the Government’s employment claims.

The Government’s other argument, that there’s no alternative, public spending must be cut, owes more to ideology than to proper stewardship of the economy or to fairness. And here is where the battle for hearts and minds must take place. We know that the pain that’s coming from swingeing cuts to public spending, frontline jobs and services will be highly damaging, and lasting in its effect. The long-term damage as young people struggle to get into higher education or onto the employment ladder, the risk to families under increasing pressure as financial support is cut, the harm that is done by reducing investment in the crucial early years – health in pregnancy grants, Sure Start, Playbuilder and Building Schools for the Future – all this sets back a whole generation of children and young people, damages their wellbeing, their future potential and lifechances. That’s bad for individual, bad for the economy, wasteful for society as a whole.

The ConDem government clearly doesn’t get why the underpinning support of the welfare state is so important, both as a safety net and as a springboard to enable people to get on and get ahead. Yet for Labour it’s always been fundamental, from the visionary ambition of the post-war Attlee government to the bold New Labour programme of social justice and redistribution effected under Blair and Brown.

Now our job is once again to make that case compellingly to the public, and to expose the huge gulf between us and the Government, not exaggerate divisions among ourselves. And we can be confident and courageous in doing that. After all, we should not forget the popularity that Labour’s progressive policies enjoyed from 1997, or ignore the public outrage at the culture of excessive rewards for a few that brought our financial system to its knees, and nearly brought the economy down.

Labour came out of a bad election defeat surprisingly united, up for the fight, in good heart. That’s because we share a vision, and we know the scale of the threat. In the weeks and months ahead, our job is to re-convince the voters of our competence, our integrity, our radicalism, and our commitment to a better future for all. Head-on measures to reduce inequality mark us out as 100% different from the ConDem government, offer the fairest future to the many, the surest route to sustainable economic recovery, and lie at the heart of our Labour values. Let’s be bold in speaking out for them now.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith’s consultation document on welfare has many worrying gaps. At first sight, there’s not much to complain about in ’21st Century Welfare’ – insofar as it goes. What’s there seems mostly unexceptionable – the worry is with what is not.

In truth, this is a remarkably thin document, offering more in the way of broad brush proposals (a universal credit, a single IT-based delivery system) than specifics about plans – or costs. No-one will argue that our welfare benefits system ought to be simple to understand, and to ensure work pays. But our system of social support fulfils many broader functions – as a safety net, as a demonstration of social solidarity, as a means of recognising and supporting caring and wider social contribution – as well as promoting and incentivising work. These goals are missing from the document, and, it has to be assumed, from the government’s vision for social security too.

Even within its own limited terms of addressing work incentives, the document misses much of the point. We know there are plans to introduce a Single Work Programme of interventions to help people back into work, but the linkage to those reform plans is scarcely made at all. There’s little discussion of barriers to employment or the nature of the labour market, the scantiest reference to skills and qualifications, a passing remark or two about childcare, absolutely nothing about pay, conditions, rights, vacancy rates, progression opportunities, or structural inequalities in the workplace. But just as much as the benefits system, the labour market itself creates substantial barriers to work. Perhaps the government has a strategy for addressing that – it fails to get a mention in this document.

Missing too, is any indication of the cost of the reforms, the timescale, and what the proposals mean for levels of benefits. Perhaps that’s not surprising: we’re already on notice that the Treasury’s very, very unlikely to wear any increased cost. As a result, the DWP are forced to suggest that the changes proposed can pay for themselves, even save money over time. Savings on the benefits bill, it’s been suggested, can be recycled into delivering more effective programmes to get more people into and progressing at work. That may be true to a limited extent, but the risks for the poorest are significant, the upfront costs substantial, and the economic climate unpropitious for such ideas to take root right now.

That’s not to say that a wholesale review of the goals of our welfare system, its current deficiencies, and strategic solutions, isn’t overdue. Such a review might look again at the nature of contribution and entitlement, the minimum income needed to support basic living standards and maximise life chances, the structure of the labour market, changes in demographics and support for different patterns of family life, and wider social support. That might be too much to expect of this document, but the lack of attention to this broader context creates substantial risks.

What we’re looking at is a half baked programme of reforms that will likely be paid for by cuts in benefits as the means to incentivise work. The government might deny it, but the signs are already there. The emergency budget announcements of a cap on housing benefit, a freeze on child benefit, cuts to tax credits, plans for more tests for disability benefits, and uprating benefits in future in line with the less generous consumer price index rather than RPI all carry a warning of where these proposals are likely to lead. Whatever IDS’s intentions, the plans outlined in 21st Century Welfare will surely increase poverty and fear.

Ken Clarke’s reportedly at odds with the Prime Minister on the direction of penal policy, and his junior Minister Crispin Blunt has already been slapped down by Number 10 for suggesting that entertainments for prisoners should be reinstated. But before Labour crows at yet another coalition split (and all within the Conservative party this time), let’s be careful to consider the evidence.

Our starting point is clear of course: Labour’s record on crime is a good one. Contrary to government spin, the British Crime Survey – generally considered to be a reasonably reliable way to measure crime, as it reflects individuals’ reported experience, not just what the police record – shows a fall in crime under Labour, including violent crime. Fear of crime also fell. It’s highly regrettable therefore that Theresa May has decided to remove the public confidence indicator that focused police attention on actions that reassure the public.

What’s more, Labour’s track record wasn’t an accident: increased police numbers and visible policing (especially the highly successful and popular police community support officers) played their part. Tough and focussed action on antisocial behaviour helped too – though it’s fair to say that anxiety about such behaviour remains high on my constituents’ worry-list. A strong and growing economy over most of the past 10-15 years will also have contributed to the good results. Criminologists have long noted that crime is generally higher when the economy experiences a downturn, and it’s perhaps self-evident that people are less likely to turn to crime when employment’s plentiful and they feel better off.

What’s less clear is how effective penal policy has been in recent years, and here Clarke and Blunt are surely right to open up the debate. Under Labour, the prison population almost doubled, so at first sight that too will have contributed substantially to the reduction in crime. But noone can feel proud of a prison population that’s now proportionately the highest in western Europe, nor at the high levels of recidivism among those sentenced to custody, and nor can we be comfortable with the cost. It’s surely right to look for alternatives to custody that prevent and reduce reoffending, punish appropriately, and protect and reassure the public.

That means far more attention to and support for strong community penalties, which are much less costly than custody, and which, by keeping those convicted close to their support networks, able to keep their homes and jobs, can contribute to improved reoffending rates. We must of course ensure that such penalties are genuinely demanding and constitute a proper payback, but importantly too we have to convince the public that these penalties are no soft option, and that they’re effective in reducing crime. In recent years, it’s not clear that we did very much to sell community penalties either to the public or to sentencers, as we sought to be tough on crime.

Of course we should be protective of the interests of victims, and here too Labour’s done good work. Information’s better, victim impact statements give victims their say in court, and the victims surcharge raised £8million last year. But the coalition government is right to go further, by taking a serious interest in restorative justice – it isn’t by any means what every victim of a crime will want, but where it works it has proven empowering for victims, and appears to be contributing to better reoffending rates.

We must understand where and how far we got the balance of investment right, between prevention and punishment, between custody and community penalties, between focus on the victims of crime and investing upstream on preventative work with those more likely to offend. It’s good that new Ministers are asking questions, and we must hope that will lead to a rigorous examination of what worked, and what proved good value for money, as part of the forthcoming spending review.

For our part, we must avoid finding ourselves locked into a kneejerk out-toughing of the government, and instead be open-minded in our assessment of the evidence of the past 15 years. After all, Labour has nothing to fear from such scrutiny. Our successful record on crime reduction is strong enough to bear it.

New members are full of enthusiasm and Labour is already back campaigning, whether on the street or in opposition in parliament. Let’s make sure we give members new and old the chance for proper debate within the party.

In common with most constituencies, my local party has seen a significant jump in membership since the election. Many of these new members are hugely enthusiastic, keen to be involved in campaigning, pleased they’ll have a vote in the leadership election, looking forward to having their say about the future direction and priorities of the Labour party.

The upbeat mood of the membership matches the mood of Labour in parliament. The shadow ministerial team has been highly effective in challenging the Government, and backbenchers crowd the Chamber to question and criticise Ministers.

So the party’s looking good: determined, united, growing – and up for the fight. With local elections for many of us only 10 months off, we’ve been right back out campaigning, attacking what’s proving to be an excessively rightwing government, energised by our anger at what they’re doing, eager to move in on the LibDems as the polls show their support collapse.

It’s great to see Labour as a strong campaigning organisation, and everyone’s agreed that we need to keep our membership, especially our new members, involved and engaged. That comes in part from local efforts to welcome and involve them in campaigning activity – but it comes too from ensuring that members have the right to participate in and shape the political debate. And that’s not just important for us internally – it’s important if we’re to create a compelling vision that engages the electorate, one that isn’t just about what’s wrong with the government, but is clear about what we’d do differently, what Labour stands for.

We must have that vision as the prerequisite of regaining power, giving voters a reason to vote Labour again. Of course there will be plenty to attack, as cuts in public spending and the dismantling of our public services begin to bite hard. But despite the pain that’s undoubtedly coming, there is still a large risk for Labour in the public perception that something had to be done about the deficit, coupled with the government refrain that “Labour got us into this mess”.

We can and must resist those arguments, for we have a strong story to tell about our track record over the past 13 years. Let’s be clear: the deficit is not the consequence of Labour profligacy. Since 1997, we had been investing in a fairer society, rebuilding a public infrastructure destroyed by 18 years of Tory government. Then, in 2007, the rise in public borrowing to bail out the banks was the result of an essential rescue package in response to a global economic crisis – where it’s widely recognised Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling led the way, and the Tories called it wrong. And for the aftermath of the crisis, we can demonstrate in detail that we did have a credible plan to reduce the deficit too.

But getting over the story about our past record and recovery plans isn’t all we must do. We need to convey the vision that we have for the future, and build a policy programme that embodies that. That must be done with the full engagement of our members, and we really shouldn’t be frightened of vigorous debate.

In recent years that didn’t happen inside our party, and so it’s no surprise that our membership declined. Now that it’s on the increase, we must ensure that part of the deal for our members is that their voice counts. That means of course that we must invest in the political education of our party, but for that too we should recognise that our members bring us a whole range of expertise on which we can draw.

It’s said that nobody wants to sit around in dusty Labour party meetings, that members want to be out organising in the community, activists and campaigners first. But my sense is that many do want to be part of a vibrant debate about policy and politics (watch a group of members in the pub after a party meeting), and we need to create the party structures that give proper recognition to the importance of that aspect of party membership too. Political debate is not inward-looking self indulgence, it’s what many members join for, it says something positive about us as a party if we do it well, and it’s the way we create a strong narrative and vision that engages voters too.

A new leader, thousands of new members and a new and very testing political climate give us a chance to do things differently from the past few years. Let’s be bold in the debate about how we do that – for the united, confident party that we’ve been since the election, it will be an early and powerful sign of our strength.

Past Tory warm words on public health measures are turning out to be just that. But Labour can resist harmful cuts and support public health through a positive campaign on fast foods, health in pregnancy and sports.

Remember A Healthier Nation – the Conservative party document that promised a focus on improving public health? Policy, it claimed, would be evidence-based, and health inequalities reduced. The department of health was even to be renamed the department of public health.

A genuine focus on preventative public health strategies would of course be a highly welcome step to reduce health inequalities. But it’s already clear from their announcements that the Tory-Lib Dem government is interested in nothing of the sort. While much of the debate to date has been focused on the government’s reorganisation plans for the NHS in this week’s white paper, and about the decision to remove targets for treatment times, other pronouncements tell us more about the government’s attitudes, priorities and intentions, and could have far greater and highly damaging implications for the nation’s health.

Ministers’ plans to engage consumer businesses in the Change4Life campaign which promotes healthy lifestyles, fitness and diet, have begun to provoke alarm. And that sits alongside a range of measures – axing the health in pregnancy grant, cancelling the extension of the free school meals pilots, freezing or restricting benefits which leave the poorest without the means to eat a healthy diet or heat their homes adequately, cutting free swimming for under-16s and the elderly – which fly in the face of improving public health. Instead Andrew Lansley and his ministerial team have made clear their view that it’s up to individuals to take responsibility for their and their families’ health.

This is old-fashioned Thatcherism, based on the traditional Conservative agendas of minimal public spending, minimal regulation on the business community, and antipathy to anything that smacks of the ‘nanny state’. If ministers were truly interested in the evidence, they would avoid knee-jerk cuts and pay more attention to the experts. Only last month, the BMJ carried a report of a new study that showed the importance of wider social spending (as opposed to specific healthcare spending), in relation to addressing health conditions associated with social circumstances, such as TB, cardiovascular disease and alcohol related deaths. And Professor Sir Michael Marmot, in his report on health inequalities earlier this year, suggested that increasing the national minimum wage would be the most significant step government could take to improve the nation’s health.

Of course, ministers will argue that reduction of the deficit means cuts have to be made. But as ever with the coalition government, the sum of individual policy decisions shows the real extent of their assault on the welfare state. Measures which help the poorest, reduce inequality and offer long-term benefits to society all face the axe.

Labour must find a way to build up the pressure on the government’s strategy, and perhaps it’s the broad-based, popular and everyday nature of the practice and policies that are needed that offer a chance to do that – whether it’s banning fast food outlets near school gates, securing the funding for the local football club, or making sure young pregnant women can afford a healthy diet. Parents, teachers, women’s organisations, family support groups, youth workers, sports clubs, the police, nursery and childcare staff, housing associations, employers, the local farmers’ market, as well of course as healthcare professionals – all could be allies in such a campaign. If we’re serious about improving health outcomes, but more broadly in protecting and making the case for our welfare state, let’s start that campaign now.

This week Parliament will debate the Government’s intention to extend anonymity to defendants accused of rape. This proposal appeared nowhere in the Conservative or LibDem manifestos, but turned up out of the blue in the Coalition Agreement in May. Labour MPs (and some MPs from other parties) were horrified, and have been mounting a vigorous campaign against it, led by Caroline Flint.

It’s a tribute to the determination of Caroline and others that the debate is happening now. For Ministers seemed, at least at first, to be incapable of understanding what the fuss was about. Contradictory, dismissive and ill-informed answers were offered to the challenges Labour MPs laid out. While claiming that they shared the concern about the shockingly low level of successful rape prosecutions, Ministers appeared unwilling to understand how this idea could make matters worse.

While we can readily imagine the horror of being accused of a crime one has not committed – any crime, but especially this violent and vicious crime – the importance of public protection surely must come first. As Baroness Stern in her review of the handling of rape complaints pointed out, many rape victims are often especially vulnerable: young, sometimes with learning difficulties, or without strong family support. Many victims are ashamed of what’s happened, particularly where rape has taken place within the family unit or within a close community. They may be pressed to cover up the attack, or face outright rejection of their claim that a rape has taken place.

All this contributes to reluctance among rape victims to report attacks, increasing the risk that the accused attacks again. Extending anonymity at any stage of the legal process would add yet further risk, both for the victim, and for potential victims too.

As the Lord Chancellor himself acknowledged, victims and accused may often be known to one another, increasing the likelihood that they continue to come into contact after an attack has taken place. If the accused is assured of anonymity, the risk of that happening, and of interference with and threats to the victim, is surely heightened, especially given that a substantial proportion of those ultimately convicted of rape at some stage are released on bail.

What’s more, whether or not victim and accused are known to one another, anonymity would inhibit the reporting of other and further attacks. Victims are more likely to come forward when they hear others describe experiences that replicate their own.

It’s not clear why rape should be treated differently from other offences, where these arguments are apparently accepted, and anonymity for the accused would never routinely be the case. So we’re forced to the conclusion that at the heart of this proposal was an unspoken but underlying assumption that those who claim to have been raped should not readily be believed. Indeed, all too often they are not believed – as the appalling saga of the police failure to apprehend John Worboys as he raped scores of women over the years more than amply proves. Instead, anxiety about possible false accusations appears to have gripped the Government’s thinking, reflecting a perhaps populist assumption that victims are wickedly and deliberately falsely accusing their attackers, or are unreliable and irrational in their reports. What’s more, society is still too ready to assume that a woman who’s raped is herself in some way responsible for the attack.

A radical change of direction of policy must not be founded on prejudice and myth. The opportunity for full consideration of the issues is vital if there is any suggestion that policy needs to be changed. It’s to be hoped that the agreement to a debate in Parliament will lead to a full risk analysis to allow for a proper review of the evidence to take place. Ministers must guarantee that will happen – there will be no shame on them if they back down on this proposal now.

Kate Green finds little fairness in the coalition’s first budget.

George Osborne’s budget last week adds up to an appalling attack on family budgets – and those who will feel the greatest pain will be the poorest and the out-of-work. Benefits reductions coupled with an increase in VAT puts the budgets of lower-income households under severe pressure at a time when jobs are hard to come by and their sustainability far from guaranteed. Even the increase in child tax credit merely compensates for the pain that’s felt elsewhere. Overall, this is a cruel, mean-minded budget for families, and one that totally fails the government’s fairness test.

To make matters worse, freezing child benefit, undermining the longterm value of safety net benefits by linking them in future to the generally lower consumer price index , removing tax credits from middle income households, re-testing claimants for disability benefits, and capping housing benefit and help with mortgage interest are only the first steps. Already the Chancellor has told us that other public expenditure can be protected only if further savings are made out of the benefits bill – clearly a softening up for more freezes and cuts. And while Iain Duncan Smith’s determination to see more claimants come off benefits and into jobs, and to make work pay, is of course incontestable in theory – indeed that was exactly the thrust of Labour’s recent welfare reforms – here too the signs are already obvious that he intends to achieve that through meaner benefits and tougher conditions rather than improving prospects at work.

Linking benefits to CPI, removing child tax credits from more and more families and freezing child benefit are highly damaging steps. Adequate out of work benefits are essential to enable families to make ends meet when jobs are lost, and to fulfil their financial commitments, avoiding the spiralling debt which in turn acts as a barrier to making work pay. But the government’s new measures will reduce the value of these benefits over time.

Freezing universal child benefit will make matters even worse. The value of this reliable, universal benefit, particularly at a time when parents are worried about job security, cannot be overstated. Freezing it now reduces the protection and stability it provides for families in uncertain times.

The decision not to progress with further rollout of the free school meals pilots puts more family budgets under pressure as parents move into work. Many parents taking up low-paid work express shock at the impact that the loss of free school meals has on disposable income. How can the government claim it wants to incentivise work, then take away this support?

The sick and disabled – a group already at greater risk of poverty – are set to suffer too. Testing more disabled claimants for Employment and Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance will likely reduce the incomes of many disabled people, and create uncertainty and anxiety for very many more.

The cap on housing benefit announced in the budget will cause considerable hardship. Overcrowding is one of the top issues I meet in my Manchester constituency surgeries – reducing the amount families can spend on rent will exacerbate the problems overcrowded households already face. MPs across the country tell the same story: one inner London MP calculates that 84% of private tenants in her constituency pay rent above the new cap for benefit. It’s no good the government complaining about a lack of social housing, then reducing financial support for those in rented accommodation and removing housebuilding targets from local authorities. These policies will drive more families into substandard accommodation, while the restriction on help with mortgage interest increases the risk of repossessions and homelessness among homeowners too.

If all that wasn’t bad enough, it’s not just the cuts to the benefits bill that put the poorest under fire. The rise in VAT will hurt the poorest too. It’s no use ministers arguing that VAT is a progressive tax as a proportion of expenditure, or that the zero rating of some basic items means the poorest suffer less. VAT is not some sort of luxury tax – it attaches to household basics, and the disposable incomes of poorer families will be very severely stretched.

And finally we hear from the Work and Pensions Secretary that people should move around the country to take up work – the 21st century reprise of Norman Tebbit’s “on yer bike” . That would impose a further set of expectations on the poorest that would be unrealistic, unfair and cruel. Jobseekers are already required to travel reasonable distances to take up work. If Iain Duncan Smith intends to go further, the informal support networks that many rely on, family relationships, stability for children, and stronger communities will all be put at risk. No middle class parent would move around the country for work without considering the impact on their child’s’ schooling, no middle aged child of an elderly parent who relies on her daughter to pop in to do a bit of shopping and check she’s doing ok would dream of moving away and leaving her mum without access to support. Yet that’s precisely what could be expected of the poorest if these proposals go ahead.

All this makes clear that the government’s attitude to welfare reform and managing the public finances is that the demands on and expectations of the poorest should be more onerous, the consequences more painful, than for those who have the most. It’s a bad start from a government that proclaimed its budget should be judged on grounds of fairness. It totally fails that test.

A toxic mix of academisation and free schools, savage cuts and selection are likely to divert resources away from those who need it most, resulting in a two-tier education system.

The new government’s policies for schools are getting under way – with potentially dire effects on poorer children. On the one hand, ministers are pressing ahead with the creation of a schools “market” – applications for so-called “free schools” are now open, and the academies bill, which is focused on creating many more academies outside local authority control, has begun its parliamentary passage in the Lords. On the other hand, investment which would help the poorest is already under attack: funding for free school meals has been axed, money for school IT has been cut, and considerable anxiety has been expressed about the fate of the Building Schools for the Future programme, which concentrated funding on schools in poorer areas first.

It’s impossible for the government to argue that such an approach shows it has the best interests of every child at heart. Dressed up as a focus on academic excellence, in reality it favours families with the resource and the capacity to take the best out of the system, and risks leaving children from poorer backgrounds in poorly funded, under-resourced schools. That will exacerbate rather than narrow the disadvantage that a family’s economic circumstances mean for children’s attainment.

It’s already well documented that children from low income families do less well at school than children of similar ability from better off homes. Despite rising standards under Labour, at three years old children from poorer backgrounds are already one year behind their wealthier counterparts, and by the time they reach secondary school the gap has increased to two years. High-performing children at primary school who come from poor backgrounds have a much lower chance of achieving good GCSEs at secondary school than children from wealthier families.

Schools need to do more therefore to compensate for the effects of income inequality. The much promised pupil premium (though so far without any hard cash figures attached – we wait to hear if it will be adequately funded) could go some way to address that imbalance, and we should welcome it when it comes. But other government policies pull in precisely the opposite direction.

First, diverting funding to the new academies and the new free schools threatens to drain resources out of the system, leaving children in schools that have not opted out with less well-funded support. And it is the services which matter for poorer families – school travel, school meals, library services, music and sport facilities, provision for special needs – which will suffer as central local authority funding is reduced. These are the services that poorer families are more reliant on, since poorer parents are less likely to have the means to provide them for their children themselves.

Second, priority to becoming a new academy is to be given to schools which already have the best-performing records, meaning extra resources will go first to the schools that are already doing well. Money that could for example support additional teaching, one to one tuition and tailor-made learning activities will end up in already high-performing schools, rather than those schools with more disadvantaged intakes, whose pupils need more support.

Third, worries exist about admissions and exclusions policies in the new academies and free schools. Ministers say the new schools will be subject to the admissions code, but the reality is that we can expect is a situation where schools rather than parents are the ones who get to choose. That will be exacerbated by new rules allowing selective schools to become academies and thus secure additional resources – something Labour’s policies did not allow. Yet as experience already shows in my own constituency, where selective education continues, it is in results for the poorest children that we see greater underperformance. Now resources could be further skewed away from those whose achievement is already lowest.

Ministers will of course argue that a combination of increased parental choice and more resources and incentives for the best performing schools will drive up academic excellence, draw in more parents and reduce socioeconomic disadvantage. But the driving factor behind low educational attainment is poverty, and directing extra resources at high performing schools in practice means more resources going to those who are already more advantaged, widening the attainment gap.

As the Local Government Association has warned, a two-tier education system is likely to be the outcome – and rising inequality will be the inevitable result. If Ministers were serious about driving up the academic attainment of all children, and reducing inequality, they would ensure that their policies and their spending plans prioritised poorer families first.

The language of the new government points to less social justice and a profound dismantling of the welfare state as we know it.

The chancellor presented his spending review framework document to parliament last week. It received relatively little attention – yet in just 19 pages it tells us much about the ideological approach of the new government. The guiding principles to be followed by the government in carrying out its deficit reduction plan are to be “freedom, fairness and responsibility… to demonstrate that we are all in this together”. But the likely impact will be quite the opposite. This spending review lays the ground for a residualised and minimalist welfare state.

Here are the strategic priorities the document lays out. Spending cuts will take precedence over tax increases. Public sector pay and pensions will face restraint. “State monopolies” will be challenged in the search for “a greater range of service providers”. Individuals and frontline professionals will assume greater power and responsibility in allocating limited resources, and targeting will aim resources at those most in need.

That adds up to a diminished role for the state, with the focus instead on individual and community empowerment, a kaleidoscope of provision, and a minimal safety net. There’s no evidence to suggest that such an approach delivers greater economic or social justice for the poorest, and plenty of recent history to suggest that middle income households also suffer from the decline in public services that will result. Already details are emerging, for example, of planned cuts to children’s and youth services, which are causing great concern. And that of course is only the start. As unemployment rises and financial support for families is cut, as university places become scarcer and more expensive, as infrastructure investment, housebuilding and local regeneration projects grind to a halt, the challenge – and the opportunity – for Labour in opposition is great.

As the government seeks to shrink the state, arguing both ideological and fiscal grounds, we must find every way we can to remind the public of the progress of the past 13 years, and what was achieved. Too often in the election campaign we found that progress was forgotten, or at best taken for granted, as voters understandably focused on where our policies had let them down. While of course it’s right to address those concerns, we must also fight to protect the gains that were made. That requires us to re-make the case for public provision, and explain why the state has a major role to play.

The challenge now is to defend our record of public spending, and explain how public borrowing was used to protect the economy through the downturn. It is to rebuild the case for good quality provision which comes from the shared experience of systems of social support and service use, binding society more closely, reducing stigma and driving up standards, legitimising and securing the right to support. And we must convincingly demonstrate that the redistribution of power the government proclaims will be meaningless without action to address economic inequality too. For without a fairer distribution of resources, it’s frankly impossible that we will “all be in this together” – the better off will simply buy their way out.

Finally, we must not allow the cry “there isn’t any money”, that scarce resources must be targeted, to disguise the underlying threat that the government’s plans pose to a welfare state for all. In challenging the tax and spending decisions of the government, we can and we must be unapologetic in the welfare state’s defence. Fairness, freedom and responsibility – for everybody – are after all what our welfare state was built on. Those are the values we must fight to protect.

Today’s decision is a blow that families may understand only in years’ time, and is an attack on the social mobility the governing parties claim to support

So now it’s started. Within a couple of weeks of taking office, and even before we hear the Queen’s Speech tomorrow, the new government’s cuts to funding for families are already underway. Today we hear that the government intends to introduce secondary legislation to scale back government payments due to Child Trust Funds from 1 August 2010. From that date, payments at birth will be reduced from £250 to £50 for better off families, and from £500 to £100 for lower income families; and payments at age seven stopped. What’s more, the government intends to introduce primary legislation to stop all payments from 1 January 2011 – just seven months from now.

This is just the sort of mean-spirited, below the radar cut we can expect to get used to now. Young people wouldn’t actually have received the money in their Child Trust Fund till they reach age 18 – so today even the first potential recipients won’t yet have reached their teens. By the time families notice what they’ve lost, the blame that attaches to George Osborne for this ungenerous decision will have been long forgotten. But for two parties that have made such play of improving social mobility, this is a cynical step. The evidence that having some assets behind you as you start out on adult life makes an enormous difference has been casually brushed aside. For low-income families in particular, who struggle to find even modest sums they can save for the future, this will be a big blow.

But the axing of the Child Trust Fund also tells us how little regard this government has for the wider concept of universal support. The Child Trust Fund was one of the best examples of Labour’s philosophy in government of ‘progressive universalism’ – all received something, but the poorest received more. That’s important in reducing stigma and binding society together, but it’s already clear from this early measure that the new government wants to residualise spending on financial support for families – expect more and more targeting to be the order of the day. So some funding will be recycled for disabled children – a small and important concession, but one that exemplifies the government’s approach to supporting only those it believes deserve help. Labour MPs must be vigilant – or risk this first measure as coming to be seen as just the thin end of a very thick wedge.