What Mr Cameron is implicitly referring to is that voters in ever-greater numbers are beginning to see through the sham of the Big Society. No matter how much he protests to the contrary, it is becoming more and more apparent that it is, as we have said before, nothing but a cover for ideological cuts. A recent YouGov poll put Labour 10 points ahead nationally and the coalition parties are heading for a drubbing on March 3 at the Barnsley Central by-election.
This is before the harshest impact of the cuts is felt. The latest unemployment figures, showing one in five young people are out of work among the almost 2.5 million jobless, are a taste of worse to come. Inflation continues on a seemingly inexorable upward trend, making an increase in interest rates by the Bank of England more likely. The usual medicine for curbing upward pressure on the cost of living involves the slowing down of the economy, longer dole queues and more firms going bust. Since the recovery already isn’t working, it’s difficult to see where the Government will take the economy, except that it may involve hell and a handcart.
But if it is going to be a difficult year for Mr Cameron, it is already proving a very, very good year for the bankers who remain loftily, and now unrepentant, above the chaos they caused, wallowing in obscene bonuses as citizens’ advice bureaux – the very service designed to help those in trouble – are slashed by the cuts. As JK Galbraith chronicled some years ago, every major financial crisis has been caused by the private sector and every one has become the public sector’s problem.
And while Mr Cameron’s year is getting worse, Ed Miliband’s is getting better. Officially burying “New” Labour may be only a totemic act which ultimately and practically means very little to the public. But it is a symbolic break with a past which underpins the direction of travel Mr Miliband set out in his conference speech as Labour’s newly-elected leader last year. With his party’s improving showing in the polls and an evidently more effective team, Mr Miliband’s confidence in the role is growing. That is good for facing down his critics and convincing an undecided public that he would make a good Prime Minister. It is good in that it will provide the opportunity for greater boldness where it is needed – particularly in defining more clearly Labour’s alternative economic policy. But it must be boldness in keeping with the promise laid out in that conference speech. Gestures, welcome as they are in restoring an undiluted Labour brand, are no substitute for substance and should not be used as cover for any distancing of the brand from the unions.
