For those of us who recoil in horror at a government which sees itself as the revolutionary vanguard of the Conservative Party, despite being a coalition of two parties with no mandate, these are words that often come to our lips.

But this morning that horror, the dreaded feeling in the pit of my stomach, catapulted me to new heights of nausea. A leaked letter from Brandon Lewis, the local government minister, revealed that the government is secretly drafting new laws to privatise fire and rescue services in Britain.

The actual letter states that new laws “would enable fire and rescue authorities in England to contract out their full range of services to a suitable provider”.

Now I don’t know about you but to me this sounds like the most far-fetched yet simultaneously backward idea I have ever heard.

BUT, it doesn’t surprise me. This is the sort of nonsensical neo-liberal claptrap with which this government is quickly becoming synonymous.

It doesn’t surprise me because it reflects a wider malaise within the Conservative Party, a parliamentary party increasingly detached and at times, in direct conflict with, its natural support base. A political party far more interested in its own abstract ideas of the essential and inherent strength of free markets than having any meaningful dialogue with its natural supporters. It’s the political equivalent of a person who goes to a party and sticks on his progressive jazz records and sits in the corner, eyes closed and blotting out everything else.

It’s a point that many in the Conservative movement do understand. Tim Montgomerie knows, I’m sure, that his cherished and long sought blue-collar conservatives would baulk at the idea of a privatised fire and rescue service.

And this is before we even get onto the mountain of evidence showing that privatised services are fraught with danger and beset by problems. A4E, Circle, Serco, G4S; the list goes on and on. The Olympics fiasco and the Work Programme are to name but two high profile cases. If these ‘shadow state’ organisations can’t organise adequate staffing for the Olympic Games, how can we trust them with one of our most fundamentally important services?

The wider point to make about this endless barrage of reforms is that they come at a time of sustained budget pressures. From the NHS to probation and from the police to education, they are trying to institute top down radical reform with no mandate, whilst pulling the rug from underneath them. The NHS budget may have supposedly been ring fenced but the costs of reform are hurting the frontline.

Privatisation of the fire and rescue service will probably never happen. My fingers are certainly crossed. The public outcry (I hope) would be too much. But the mere fact that it is being discussed at the heart of government reflects wider problems within the Conservative Party. True conservatism has gone up in flames. Let’s hope our fire and rescue services aren’t the next on the bonfire.

These are the words not of a Harvard professor, nor a professional think-tanker, but of the Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham. Jon Cruddas is a politician unlike any other.

His speech last night at the Centre for Social Justice was the last in a series of three talks based around the idea of the Good Society. After a superb talk by Graham Allen MP on early intervention and the Good Society and another from David Lammy on the family as the bedrock of the Good Society, Jon spoke about how the state could inform Labour’s vision of a politics of the common good.

He set up his talk as a dichotomy between two concepts of human nature, utilitarianism and sociability. He identified a marketisation of society, where market and state, closely intertwined, have taken absolute precedence over the consideration of society. This he linked back to a utilitarian tradition, where rationalism always trumps ideas of sociability and virtue.

The utilitarian concepts, embraced wholeheartedly by the political class, have caused an atomisation of society. Public service is no longer viewed as a reciprocal relationship between provider and user, but as a rational calculation of value. This is where state and market have overlapped, with ideas about free market economics informing the way in which the state interacts with its citizens. This has led to the neglect of the role of society in human interaction.

He painted a picture of Britain as one which is characterised by anger, loneliness, isolation and depression. This is because public institutions are now seen as essentially antagonistic to people and society. Corporations, banks, big business and public services have come to be seen as essentially anti-social. They are now viewed as outside of society, institutions which profoundly affect people’s lives but over which they have little or no control. The covenant that sustained these institutions within society has been broken, purposefully and deliberately by those in authority.

This is strange territory for the Labour Party, and requires deep soul-searching about our history, our ideas and the last thirteen years of Labour government. The managerial modernisation of public service contributed to the malaise in which the state now finds itself. The relentless focus on targets and rational calculation divorced public services from their roots in society. Blair’s public service revolution took Thatcher’s free market economics and tried to build a social state within these parameters.

According to Jon Cruddas, the economic crisis has brought these antagonisms into sharp focus. The fact that the crisis began within the banking sector, coupled with the massive amounts of capital poured into the banking system by the taxpayer has created a crisis of authority and legitimacy. The old adage of the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of losses has never seemed more prescient.

These ideas about the utilitarian tradition informing a concept of the state can be seen all around us. Bentham’s relentless rationalism in the pursuit of the common good means that public policy has lost sight of an essential humanity, the societal impulse. The managerial revolution has sustained itself but is in dangerous territory when it no longer exudes the compassion which a virtuous society needs. Cruddas termed this, using Bentham’s own language, as the social panopticon.

These ideas are fascinating when we assess the crisis of legitimacy that the British state is facing. The crisis of democratic participation is merely symptomatic of a wider crisis within our institutions. From the banks to the energy companies people are increasingly coming to view our institutions as uncaring monoliths.

So Labour must formulate a response to the challenges the country faces. We must rediscover ideas of the common good and the virtuous citizen and seek to build a society based on care, mutual support and reciprocity. It is no easy challenge.

But with a keen eye for history, Jon Cruddas is looking back into the history of the Labour movement and seeking to uncover some of our lost traditions. Ed Miliband’s audacious grab on ‘One Nation’ saw him stake a claim to a key part of Conservative heritage. But as Cruddas argued, One Nation was a part of political discourse well before the time of Disraeli. It goes right back to the very first stirrings of an organised Labour movement in Britain, that sought to defend and conserve society from the rapid pace of industrialisation. It is about focusing on the important relationships fostered in communities, well away from the controlling machinery of market and state.

In this we must look back to some of the folk heroes of the Labour movement. He quoted E.P Thompson, the brilliant historian of the British working class, who argued that radical organisation within communities and away from the state was a feature of British socialism as early as the 1840s. Chartism sought to bring individuals together in an arena of debate. It’s People’s Parliaments were prime examples of this. William Cobbett, Robert Owen and the Tolpuddle Martyrs take us back to a time when socialism was firmly rooted in community and society. He contrasted this with modern technocratic socialism of ‘slides, rules and spreadsheets’.

So where does all of this leave the modern Labour Party, and more broadly where does it leave our political system today? Cruddas, like many others, argued that Cameron’s abandonment of the ‘Big Society’ with it’s focus on strengthening community and civic life was a tragedy not only for the Conservative Party, but for modern politics. The challenge it presented to the overly technocratic and managerial style of the New Labour years was a radical departure for a party that had all too often put its faith in the power of markets. But in two and a half years, this has become corrupted, left by the wayside as the Government sticks ever more ruthlessly to failed economic dogma. As Cruddas pointed out, there is little precedent for a political doctrine running out of steam as quickly as Cameron’s compassionate conservatism.

Labour must now formulate a response to Cameron’s failed project. It must be non-utilitarian and focus relentlessly on strengthening communities and social relations. It must also strengthen civic life by redressing the balance between market, state and society. The ‘sham localism’ of the current government has done little to radically alter this balance. The PCC elections are indicative of this. It was one of the few ideas that survived Cameron and the Conservatives renewed focus on economic dogma and rational utilitarianism. And it failed miserably.

The Policy Review and the wider Labour movement is going through a profoundly interesting period intellectually. The level of self-reflection is staggering. While many political parties who have governed for a long period and then suffered a devastating loss engage in bouts of infighting and bloodletting, this has not materialised within the Labour Party. Instead, the Policy Review under Jon Cruddas is looking at profoundly altering the relationship between citizen and state.

Thinkers such as Jon Wilson are looking at the idea of a relational state, bridging the gap between bureaucracy and individual. Moral practices feature heavily, with an emphasis on reciprocity, duty, rights and obligations. Citizen power, and the ability of individuals and society to hold their institutions to account is incredibly important. This could manifest itself through workers on boards of corporations and public services alike and the leaders of public institutions being put before annual public assemblies, held directly accountable to the users of the service.

Furthermore it is encumbent on the Labour movement to institute a real localism that involves moving significant amounts of power away from the centre and into the hands of local, democratically accountable authorities. For this, Cruddas argued, Labour must become the party of deregulation, not in business, but in local decision making.

These are exciting times for the Labour Party. It is not going to be easy. As Jon pointed out there have been only three periods of majority Labour government – 1945, 1964 and 1997. All three were after long stretches in opposition. If we are to win we must frame the debate in terms of changing the technocratic nature of government. To truly win the trust of the people we must move away from the cold and calculating rationalism of the past and move forward to a warm and reciprocal society based on ideas of the common good. To achieve this we must look into our past to shape our future.

The budget for Crime Prevention is being slashed by half from around £57million to around £23million. This marks a significant reduction in the amount of money the new elected Commissioners will have at their disposal in fighting crime in their constituencies.

Aside from making the job of the Commissioners that bit harder, the cuts announced leave many of the projects tackling the root causes of crime in communities struggling to make ends meet. Those youth projects, gang prevention schemes and educational outreach programmes face drastic cuts to the vital work they do. Alongside that, money for CCTV cameras and street lighting are also in the firing line.

But this is just the latest in a long-line of decisions which is causing mounting anger and dissatisfaction within the police force. This is incredibly dangerous. With around 88% of the cuts in government spending still to be implemented, the Government needs the police now more than ever.

Of course many of Cameron and his cohort deny this. The ideas of new-right thinkers such as Charles Murray which so permeate this government’s approach deny any causal link between poverty and crime. Of course any sane person knows this to be the ultimate of fallacies.

As the 2011 riots proved, there is almost certainly a link between poverty and inequality and crime. If more people are forced into homelessness and long-term unemployment the rate of crime will rise, and the prospect of another wave of unrest is a spectre which will haunt us.

What is even more concerning is that some of the areas most affected by the Crime Prevention budget cut are those areas which suffered so much from the riots. Birmingham’s budget is to be cut by £1.5million to just over £620,000, Manchester’s from £1million to around £415,000 and Leeds from £1.1million to around £478,000. If the money used to tackle gang violence in these cities disappears, the Government is effectively leaving inner city areas powerless to tackle the spiralling problem of organised violence.

The riots proved the ultimate bravery and sacrifice that police officers make. Senior mismanagement of the situation meant that on the first night of rioting and into the second and third nights, there were simply not enough police officers on the ground to adequately contain the disturbances.

Meanwhile, the Government are cutting the number of police by the thousands. The force has lost an estimated 6,500 frontline police officers since the Government came to power with thousands more desk jobs axed. The news yesterday that the Metropolitan Police are exploring the feasibility of selling New Scotland Yard is a sign of the huge pressures police budgets are facing.

Yvette Cooper, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, put it best:

‘David Cameron and Theresa May are weak on crime and its causes – cutting 15,000 police officers and cutting crime prevention by 60%, too.’

Their relationship with the police force is becoming increasingly fraught. Andrew Mitchell’s now famous outburst at the gates of No.10 cost him his job, but also further antagonised a police force struggling under the stress of spending cuts.

This is lunacy. As the unrest of the 1980s showed, if you are a Government undertaking a severe reduction of the welfare state, you must be prepared for the fallout. From Broadwater Farm to Brixton, from Orgreave to Toxteth, Margaret Thatcher was able to contain simmering anger only because she kept the police content and well-staffed. Without adequate police numbers, the Government run the risk of allowing crime to spiral.

This Government is not able to do that because it is fundamentally inept. From Pastygate to the Budget Omnishambles to the badger cull and now the slashing of the Crime Prevention budget, this Government has shown it is unable to have meaningful reflection and consultation on major issues. What was once the party of law and order has become the party of law and disorder.

It is a strange phenomenon. His personality unites people from across the political spectrum, with even those who vehemently disagree with his politics acknowledging his unrivalled grasp of 21^st century media-driven politics. Often his political views disappear into the background as people stand amused and amazed by his oratorical gift.

But aside from Johnson’s personality, what does such widespread support for him signal in a wider political context? What does it say about a political system driven relentlessly by the aura of celebrity and a rolling news culture? And could a disillusionment with our own political system be placing the court jester on the throne?

If we look at Boris Johnson’s record, it does not stand out as immediately impressive. His time at Eton and Oxford is well-documented. The Bullingdon Club attitude is personified in Boris Johnson. Where David Cameron and George Osborne maintain an, albeit small, aura of statesmanship, Boris Johnson eschews the traditional figure of the professional politician. He works outside of the normal political discourse and has risen fast off of the back of it.

Controversy that would have marred the career of any other politician seems to have had little effect on his rise to the top. His time as the Editor of The Spectator was deliberately provocative. The recent report into the Hillsborough Disaster has once again brought up an unsigned editorial, published in the Spectator in October 2004. The editorial claimed that, shortly after the murder of Ken Bigley in Iraq, that Liverpudlians engaged in a ‘vicarious victimhood’. The editorial further claimed that Liverpudlians refused to accept responsibility for what happened at Hillsborough claiming that they must bear some responsibility for the ‘drunken fans at the back of the crowd who mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground.’

Furthermore, although I have no doubt that Boris Johnson is not a racist, he has in the past used offensive language without thinking of the consequences. In a 2002 column, which satirised the visit of Tony Blair and the Queen to the Congo, Johnson wrote that ‘the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief’ and that the Commonwealth supplies the Queen with ‘flag-waving piccanninies’. He later apologised over these remarks.

The point I am making is that it takes a man of supreme political talent to overcome such controversies, and that these instances may prove to be the key to understanding the unstoppable rise of Brand Boris.

For all his populism, if we scratch beneath the surface and undertake an analysis of his policies and political views, we find a man more attached to right-wing dogma than the majority of the Government front-bench.

His incessant lobbying for the reduction in the top rate of income tax betrayed his political lobbying on behalf of the richest in society. He has called for tougher anti-strike legislation, diminishing further the already poor rights of trade unions. His opposition to gay marriage is well documented with his comments in 2001 that if two men are allowed to marry why not ‘three men, as well as two men, or three men and a dog.’ That he has radically changed his tune since then, and actually come out in favour of gay marriage, shows his shrewd political calculations.

I started this article before Boris Johnson’s speech to Conservative Party Conference had begun. It confirmed everything I believed to be true about him. The speech made me feel instantly drawn to him – he was warm, funny and charming.

In the speech he sought to retake the centre ground and reclaim ideas of ‘One Nation’ back from Labour. He is one of the few Conservatives who will be able to stake a claim to it convincingly. His record as London Mayor is reasonable and his ability to take political decisions which do not immediately threaten central Government is enviable. This means he is able to separate himself from the politically toxic Tory leadership.

If Boris is starting to make a return to national politics (which, it seems, he is) then we must start to judge him by different criteria than we currently do. His call at the Conservative Conference for a return to a grammar school system and a vague commitment to academic selection shows his appeal to the Tory right. As Boris knows full well, the Mayor of London has no input into education policy. He is staking a claim to national politics.

These are issues that get buried under the weight of his celebrity. But if he is to make a bid for Conservative leadership at some point in the future, these are the policies on which he must be judged. In much the same way, would Londoners have elected him as Mayor if he had power over important issues such as healthcare or education? These are questions that voters must ask themselves before viewing him as a potential future leader of the Tories or possibly even future Prime Minister.

Usually in the Greek dramas or Roman epics of which he is so fond, it is the brother, the son, a friend or rival who usurps the throne from the Emperor. There is a fearless battle involving strength, will, political manouvering or a battle of ideas. The battle for the Conservative Party will not be fought in this vain. It will be an easy affair as the crown slips onto the head of the Court Jester. The tragedy will end as a farce. And it’s a terrifying prospect.

The speech was conversational, the lack of notes or autocue adding to the sense of a leader speaking directly to the nation. The first part saw him making jokes, and not just the stale political wisecracks, but jokes which betrayed a warmth and humour uncharacteristic of the Miliband the country knows.

Jokes soon gave way to righteous anger. The failure of key British institutions to serve the best interests of the British people provoked an ire that was well tempered by his tone.

The phrase that will no doubt stick out among the front pages will be ‘One Nation’. His repetition of the phrase shows a real fleshing out of a philosophical foundation for an incoming Labour government.

As Philip Blond pointed out on Twitter during the speech, red tanks are now firmly parked on the Tory lawn. The idea of Red Toryism fleshed out by Blond over recent years is making a comeback, showing that Ed Miliband can play the Tories at their own game. By exposing the emptiness of Cameron’s compassionate conservatism, Miliband has played a political trump card.

Another significant comeback were some of the ideas associated with Blue Labour. Miliband was not scared to confront issues that were once seen as politically toxic for the Labour Party. Although some on the left may still be uncomfortable with a Labour leader talking about immigration, it is an issue which will speak straight to an increasingly fragmented society. As Mark Ferguson tweeted,

‘Country, faith, nation. Rumours of Blue Labour’s demise have been spectacularly overstated.’

Finally, Miliband touched on the NHS. Nothing in the last two years of British politics has been more damaging to the Conservatives. More than any other issue it has contributed to the retoxification of the Tory Brand. And with the stealth privatisation only just beginning, the next two years will most likely see a hardening of attitudes to a Conservative party deemed to have sacrificed a national treasure in the name of private profit.

These themes are nothing new. These are things which Labour Party policy wonks have been discussing for a long time. What Miliband managed to do today was articulate the themes of responsible capitalism and One Nation in a way we can all understand and relate to.

The Conservatives must now realise they have a battle on their hands. A united Labour Party with a distinct mission statement is a formidable thing.  Now with a leader increasingly difficult to undermine, the fight is on.

Of the many mistakes made during Cameron’s reshuffle, giving Jeremy Hunt the post of Secretary of State for Health is the most worrying. Although Lansley’s bill has set the scene and opened up the NHS to massive waves of privatization, Hunt has made it clear on several occasions his attitude and intentions.

The most widely publicized has been the 2005 pamphlet, co-authored by Mr. Hunt, in which he expresses support for a widespread privatization of health services. In it he calls for a de-nationalisation of health services in Britain, arguing that ‘our ambition should be to break down the barriers between public and private provision, in effect de-nationalising the provision of healthcare in Britain.’

This on its own would be a cause for concern. His stated intentions should worry all who hold the NHS dear.

Mirroring a cat with nine lives, Hunt managed to pull off a spectacular piece of political manoeuvring earlier this year as he avoided losing his job over his links with the Murdoch Empire. Hunt has once again shown how deep his links with vested interests go.

The latest in a long line of money-saving schemes have been the plans made by some NHS trusts to introduce regional pay.  The twenty trusts in the South West have made the plans to reduce pay and increase hours. The BMA yesterday strongly criticized the move, arguing, quite rightly, that the effect would be disastrous, preventing these NHS trusts from recruiting the best staff.

But this is part of a broader picture of cost-cutting measures, usually termed ‘efficiency savings’, that is leaving the NHS struggling. These crude methods of money-saving are being foisted upon local trusts which are struggling to make ends meet.

One of the key planks of Lansley’s bill was the devolution of spending power to GPs. This has now made it much easier for hospitals to lose money, as there is no co-ordination in terms of commissioning. Bureaucracy, now a dirty word in political discourse, is essential in planning the workings of an organisation as large as the NHS.

Some NHS trusts are now facing such dire financial straits that government appointed teams of lawyers and accountants are being sent in. These so-called ‘hit squads’ are overseeing 12 month reviews and opening the door to privatisation. Seven trusts have already been put in the firing line, with another, North Yorkshire, having succumbed this morning.

These issues are not the fault of Hunt. His predecessor Lansley has set the legislative framework which opened the door to private interests in healthcare. But Jeremy Hunt is no safe pair of hands and his record shows a level of disdain for our national healthcare system. His lobbying for Virgin Care, much like his lobbying for Murdoch, has shown that he is a minister for vested interests.

We must continue to resist these incursions into our NHS, and challenge those who believe healthcare is just another money-making opportunity.

This is not an ideological move on the part of the government. As far as my disdain stretches for messrs Cameron and Osborne, I cannot see them positively relishing the idea of a 25% increase in the rate of homelessness. Yet it is their stubbornness in economic policy, their inflexibility in terms of public spending for growth and their pigheaded dogma of Plan A that is stopping more houses being built.

As others have pointed out on Shifting Grounds, housebuilding should be a major priority for any government, especially for one tackling the worst recession for generations. As John Maynard Keynes put it to American journalist Walter Case in September 1931:

“To read the newspapers just now is to see Bedlam let loose. Every person in the country of super asinine propensities, everyone who hates social progress and loves deflation, feels that his hour has come, and triumphantly announces how, by refraining from every form of economic activity we can become prosperous again.”

This ludicrous economics just won’t suffice. A perfect storm in housing has brewed, not simply over the last two years, but over three or more decades. Right-to-Buy killed off the last vestiges of a council stock, capable of housing those in society who need the help the most. We now have a government intent on capping housing benefits in such a way as to force people, families and communities out of their homes and across the country to where cheaper housing lies.

Figures in March showed a grim picture of families struggling with mortgages and slowly being pushed into temporary accommodation as repossession rates soar. The figures then showed a 14% rise in homelessness. This has increased further so that the overall figure for the years 2009/10 to 2011/12 now stands at an overall increase of 25%.

Like most social problems, homelessness can be solved, if only there is the political will and determination behind it to see it succeed. An increase in housebuilding is a means by which cheap and affordable housing can be made available. It also has the double incentive in that it provides jobs for thousands of people up and down the country, and providing a much-needed adrenaline shot in the arm of the economy. But, as the Government’s own figures show, their intransigence with regards to Plan A knows no bounds. Social housing completions fell by a startling 97 per cent in the year 2011-12 compared with the previous year.

These are startling statistics. The construction industry is of course, in turn, suffering. Five per cent quarterly contractions are now commonplace in the construction industry with businesses struggling to stay afloat. Last week, adding insult to injury, the Government chose to focus their ire on the struggling construction business owners by damning them for paying cash in hand. When juxtaposed with the Libor affair and the HSBC money laundering scandals, the temerity is daring if not outright stupid.

But behind the facts, the figures and the problems facing the construction industry, there is a more serious issue at hand. Homelessness can tear apart families, lives, communities. The bonds that tie people together are being ripped apart because no politician seems willing to take on the housing crisis. While politicians talk endlessly of bond markets and deficit reduction, the silent crisis just keeps on rolling on.

If the coalition government continues to stick to it’s Plan A of deficit reduction then we will see little action on housebuilding. The vague promises of investment actually commit very little in terms of public expenditure. The Labour Party seems to be slowly getting a grip of the problem and identifying it as a major issue at the next election. A Policy Review document on private rented accommodation was published last week and recognised the issue of an under regulated lettings market. But Labour needs to go further and recognise the extortionate private rental market needs more wholesale reform, possibly by looking at rent capping based on a continental model.

Either way, whilst we continue to navel-gaze, more people will be turfed out of their homes and onto the street. More families will be left languishing in temporary accommodation, sent from B&B to B&B with little sense of security, happiness or community. Three things we all treasure, but which for many, must be put into perpetual suspension.

A report by Cambridge University, leaked to the Observer on Sunday, has shown the sheer pace of change in the housing market. The central claim of the document is that if the economy remains stagnant (as it looks it will for the next few years) only 27% of the population will be in ‘mortgaged home-ownership’ by 2025, compared to 43% in 1993-94 and around 35% now.

These are startling figures, indicative of both a cultural and economic shift. But is this transformation one merely of cultural attitudes to rental accommodation, or does it shed light on an underlying economic transformation?

Soaring house prices over an extended period of time has been one factor in this change. Higher house prices have meant that many are simply priced out altogether. Couple this with the huge deposits demanded by mortgage lenders and the quagmire in which we have become caught becomes even deeper.

The credit crunch which followed in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crash left an indelible mark on the property market. Liquidity has been at a premium in the banking sector since the crash and many financial institutions still lack the confidence to lend.

As is patently obvious, if there is a serious downturn in the property market, and increasing numbers of people are priced out, then the rental sector must go some way to pick up the slack. Social housing is still gold dust in some local authority areas and waiting lists have ballooned. Waiting lists rose by over 72 per cent in the last 13 years, marking a poor record for New Labour in the area of social housing provision. Over 5 million people are now on social housing waiting lists across the country.

As people are increasingly priced out of the property market, and social housing lists skyrocket, we will see a rapid transformation to a culture of private renting. This is not necessarily a retrograde step to take. Renting can be a liberating experience. Not being tied down to a mortgage makes for a more transient population, with a freedom of movement that for some can be exhilarating.

Yet this is easy for me to say. As a recently graduated student, I relish the thought of being able to move freely (be that around London or around the country). It allows for a sense of freedom and breaks the ties that bound previous generations straight into steady jobs and mortgages.

But what seems to me to give a sense of freedom and liberation, for other gives a sense of dislocation and insecurity. This housing crisis is no longer a crisis simply effecting young, single people. It is now affecting young families, priced out of the property market, and increasingly priced out of their own communities. Private rented accommodation can be extortionately expensive. Couple this with the benefits cap brought in by the Conservative-led government, and young families, especially in London, are being increasingly pushed out of their communities, places they may have lived all their lives.

The government is slowly coming round to the fact that they have an increasingly serious housing crisis on their hands. There is a severe lack of properties for an ever-growing population. Some overtures have been made to relax planning regulations as a means of increasing new builds. But this simply will not work. Aside from the objections that will be raised by the sharp-elbowed Tories of the Home Counties, there is an underlying issue. There is a chronic lack of funding for new house builds.

As I have outlined on this site before, the only means by which we can solve the housing crisis is by beginning a massive programme of house-building, funded by infrastructure spending from central government. This would provide thousands upon thousands of much needed jobs. If stimulation of economic growth ever becomes a serious priority for this government, this is surely a policy they must look at.

Yet we must come to terms with a move to a predominantly rental-based model of housing. In the past five years, the number of families with children moving to private rented accommodation has soared by 86 per cent. But private rented accommodation is dangerous because it is so severely unregulated. It is expensive, often of poor quality with little assistance from landlords, and it is insecure with the threat of eviction often looming.

This is why we must begin to regulate our rental market again. It is not exactly a new idea. Post-war Britain was rebuilt through the power of the 1945 Labour government. It also set out the idea of a ‘fair rent’. The Building Materials and Housing Act 1945 set out a ‘permitted rent’ beyond which landlords could not raise rents. This gave people a security in their housing, and aimed to stop unscrupulous landlords from profiteering.

Regulation may be anathema to some sections of the British political spectrum but it is the only means by which we can secure a sensible housing policy free of racketeering. It can tackle the sense of insecurity and dislocation many feel on moving to the private rented sector. Coupled with an infrastructure programme of house-builds rolled out across the country, we may be able to approach a solution to the housing crisis which stalks our green and pleasant land.

These will be the sort of things trotted out over the next couple of days. And no, you haven’t missed a vital piece of news. For I talk not of the much-fated Plan B. Oh no friends, we have overturned the pasty tax.

There is definitely something of the ridiculous in this change of tack. As if it provides proof of a government that listens. Rather than being an exercise in conscious reflection and democratic decision making, this move is simply a smokescreen.

I always felt uncomfortable with the pasty/granny/caravan tax narrative that came out of the spring budget. It was mainly a way for Labour and the left to try and re-run the political advantage gained during the spending review. But the truth is that there was nothing much to this year’s budget. As was the same for the Queen’s speech. It was a hallmark of a government trying to avoid the negative press coverage which the austerity agenda was starting to gain for them.

So George Osborne stuck to policies he thought would have very little negative political impact. But in this, he did not account for the hammering that his government was taking in the polls and on the doorstep. He was no longer the ‘Iron Chancellor’ from the spending review, taking the tough decisions. No, he was a lame duck chancellor of a lame duck government.

But, I digress. The reason I felt so uncomfortable with the pasty/granny/caravan tax narrative was because it obscured more important spending cuts. This is part of the endless cycle of news and of course it’s impossible to change the dominant narrative. But I felt that there were always issues more important than the proposed 20% tax on a Cornish Pasty or well-to-do pensioners having a small amount knocked off their savings allowance.

At a time when youth unemployment is rocketing into the stratosphere and many are finding it hard to gain full-time employment (even if they can be palmed off to do a few hours a week in Tesco) it’s hard to understand how 30p extra on a pasty or an increase in VAT on static caravans can really be of more concern than the security of people’s jobs and livelihoods.

Cuts in disability benefit will mean that those who are most in need in our society will begin to suffer the most. The privatisation of the NHS, the police force and many employment agencies, including assessment for disability benefits, means our public services are now simply vehicles for profit rather than centres of protection or care.

The ruthless and aggressive reform of our education system. The removal of schools from local authority control into the hands mostly of headteachers, but increasingly into the hands of private business.

The rise in tuition fees to £9,000 a year, putting back social mobility for a generation. The cuts in Education Maintenance Allowance will likewise do the same.

The profligate waste in the Ministry of Defence. The sheer incompetence of a government who buy aircraft carriers and then cancel the aircraft which were supposed to be on them!

The list goes on.

For these reasons and more, the pasty/granny/caravan tax outrage never meant more than a funny soundbite to me. I found it perturbing that, at times, the talk of pasties overtook talk of the fact that a cabinet of millionaires had purposefully taken the decision to cut the higher rate of tax from 50p to 45p.

I am sure that Osborne and co. will try to spin this story as an example of effective government, responding to the wishes of it’s citizens. It is not. You know that, I know that, we all know that. But with a looming economic crisis from the eurozone and with more than 80% of the spending cuts still to come, this is simply not news.

There were many decisions that George Osborne could have taken in the budget. He could have announced a massive program of infrastructure spending to get the economy moving. He could have instituted more tax on wealth to stem the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots. Instead he gave us half-baked policies, which seemed at times to have been written on the back of a napkin before he walked out in front of No. 11 Downing Street.

Research published today has shown that a massive majority of voters think that George Osborne and the government should move to a Plan B for the economy. A staggering 64% of those who voted for the Conservatives in the 2010 election believe that it’s time for a change of course. If even half of the furore over the pasty/caravan/granny tax can be aroused for a change in economic direction, we may yet see a Plan B from the government.

Although we may all have a lot of fun watching the government front-bench squirm as their media operation falls apart, we must remember there is a dark underbelly to all of this. We are on a precipice, and we have a government more interested in keeping wealth in the hands of the few than doing anything meaningful to sort out this crisis. These are perilous times, and U-turn on the pasty tax won’t save us.

So goes the new rhetoric on police cuts. Strange though it may seem, the Conservative Party are now losing their all-important mantle as the party of law and order. And if they are no longer the party of law and order, it really does beg the question, what are they for?

Of course, I can already hear the screams of ‘it’s the deficit!’ and ‘this is the mess Labour left us in!’ It seems that every policy announcement and every cut made by the Tory-led government begins with a sentence starting ‘difficult decisions’.

This week Theresa May visited the Police Federation conference in Bournemouth and made a speech to 1,200 police officers, trying to defend the government’s 20% cuts to the police budget. There is a fine line between bravery and madness, but I commend Mrs May. It takes a lot to face down a room of 1,200 angry coppers. I guess that now she knows how the students feel.

But this is a crisis of the government’s own making and it has shown a complete lack of foresight and concern for consequences. The decision to cut the police budget by 20% has far-reaching implications. Latest statistics have shown that at least 5,000 police officers have been taken off emergency duty in the last year. This figure looks set to rise.

Paul Mckeever, head of the Police Federation, made a 40-minute speech at the conference with the Home Secretary sat listening close by. In it he said “This is a bad deal for police officers, it’s a bad deal for the service and most of all it’s a bad deal for the British public.” If his views are strong, the views of ordinary police officers were indignant. ‘20% cuts are criminal’ read the banner, a banner that would have been behind the Home Secretary during her speech had it not been for some last minute stage dressing.

The whole line of argument from this government is based on crass assumption. The lack of evidence in their policy making betrays a fundamental flaw in their political ideology. There is a basic rejection that anything other than the flawed moral character of an individual can be responsible for crime. Again and again it is drilled into us- it is their fault, society has no responsibility.

This is a perverse ideology and it stems from a whole host of new right ideologies and theories that spawned from America and to a lesser extent, Britain, in the 1980s. Society has no responsibility, and taken to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as society at all.

The Prime Minister who made this last saying famous at least had a slightly more nuanced approach to shrinking the welfare state. She understood that the cuts she was embarking on were going to wreak havoc and shake the social foundations of Britain to the very core. She knew that there would be a number of years of trouble, violence and turmoil. And so, when the cuts were to be made, she left the police alone.

Yet this government lacks the political nouse to push through these cuts. The causal links between poverty and crime are so staggeringly obvious to the majority of people, but instead this government wants to bury its head in the sand. We saw this with last summer’s riots. David Cameron proclaiming ‘this is criminality, pure and simple’. Subsequent reports have shown the strong role played by poverty in rioting in inner city areas.

Morevoer, this government seem to have completely rejected any idea of being tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime. Tony Blair made this a key plank of his policy on crime and policing and it worked. It is what people want. They want help to tackle the root causes of crime such as poverty and poor education, but they also want to have a police force that is there to protect them, and can effectively do so. This government is providing neither.

If these problems continue, with the possibility of summer rioting in inner-city areas becoming a mainstay of the British social calendar, then we have a serious problem on our hands. With a police force cut back to the bone, with a strong privatisation agenda sneaking in, these problems have a potential to spiral quickly out of control. The police service is essential to any country and having a force which is well-staffed, well-paid and generally happy about their conditions of employment is of paramount importance.

Labour should have no angst about taking up this issue and making sure that the government knows that it is making a grave mistake. The police service are after all a public service, and the employees public sector workers. This is part of a whole narrative that seeks to demonise public sector workers as a drain on our economy. Labour has nothing to fear in taking up the cause of police cuts any more than it does cuts in other parts of the public sector.

The Conservative Party could soon be losing its crown as the party of law and order. As the cuts really start to bite in subsequent years, the police service will become all the more important. To purposefully antagonise the police force is a dangerous game for the Conservatives, and they may well soon find that if you do play with fire, you will get burnt.