A massive problem is that none of the political parties in the UK are trusted on the economy. Many ‘real’ Labour voters are tired and disgusted at Lord Mandelson’s desire to put the economy above social justice. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. I think this is actually very offensive and Lord Mandelson is talking unmitigated shit. When you consider that in real life, a far cry from a millionaire’s pad in a posh part of London, many people are deprived of basic legal advice on housing, employment or welfare benefits because their law centre has shut down, you’ll get a feel for how incredibly insensitive this comment is. The reality is many disabled people have had their benefits withdrawn, and many of these decisions are being overturned on appeal. Some people have even committed suicide. This is part of Labour’s problem.

Another big problem is that, whatever you feel about the ultimate benefits or outcome of the Iraq War, many feel that the evidence is consistent with the reason for us going to war sold by Tony Blair was a lie. This is a ‘trust’ issue which Labour is paying the penalty for. But, whatever Ed Balls’ justified record in ‘being right on the economy’, he is not considered by the public as particularly trustworthy on the economy. Like all of the Conservatives’ criticisms, there is more than an element of truth despite a lot of misleading bluster. If you strip away the attack that Gordon Brown “raided our pensions”, there are genuine questions about pension funds. Gordon Brown also “did sell cheap”, although it turned out Osborne also sold cheap. However, it’s Labour’s “buy now, pay later” approach to the economy which is a huge problem. The argument that the deficit exploded due to Labour putting an emergency capital injection in investment banks is correct, but so is the accusation, first voiced by Vince Cable, that Labour encouraged a debt-fuelled boom in the housing sector. It is also true that Labour contributed to a poorly regulated situation in securitised mortgage products. Whoever is responsible for ‘crashing the car’, it happened under Labour’s watch; hence the potential efficacy of the Conservatives’ campaigning message, “Do you really want to hand the keys back to the people who crashed the car?” Labour is also unable to take a moral stand on PFI, the “private finance initiative”. This was sold to the public as a good way of investing in the infrastructure, and it was sold to bankers as a good way of making money through loans at market-uncompetitive rates. The end result is that hospitals have been cripped by the debts, meaning that some are not financial viable. This happened on Labour’s watch, despite John Major’s government having introduced a PFI ‘thinktank’ in 1995, and George Osborne having carried on with the PFI programme only last year. We as a society are still paying the penalty for it.

Labour was also good at helping multinational companies. It gave ATOS the contract for the outsourcing of benefits, so ATOS can in actual fact be shot as the messenger. There is a good economic rationale why Labour might claim we are about to enter a “lost decade”, as the economic ingredients in the mix are exactly the ones Japan faced (and which contributed to Japan’s decline). Fundamentally, the picture is of a highly taxed nation resorting to the levers of quantitative easing to keep going. An immediate solution which would helped to boost consumer demand tomorrow is perhaps a slash in the VAT rate; it is well known that a 1% cut in corporation tax is neither here nor there. But Labour is still more than happy to keep its corporate friends happy, ahead of workers. Take for example Liam Byrne’s public decision to help the Government implement the rushed legislation on workfare, which Ian Mearns had to resign over. There is admittedly a problem in here that it is alleged that other people, including Ed Miliband, might have intervened to maintain party discipline, but it goes to show what core voters in Labour are up against. Also a problem is moves afoot to make it easier to sack people, and to make the award for unfair dismissal less in amount. Labour, if it doesn’t address who it represents, will find it in fact represents no-one.

The theme of “starvation in the midst of plenty” is also seen in the privatisation of the NHS. The legal instruments which put the NHS out for competitive tendering will come into effect on 1 April 2013. The public appear to be sleepwalking into this situation, but some members of the public may be genuinely apathetic. Most health policy experts have warned that a privatised NHS could lead to a badly fragmented system, making it less likely to deliver “comprehensive care”, but it is likely that an oligopoly of private healthcare companies will be able to secure a healthy profit notwithstanding. A similar phenomenon is also seen in access-to-justice, introduced earlier. While it is true that the high street law centres are facing severe cutbacks, the City law firms are generally doing very well, delivering very healthy profits and revenues.  So, in fact, it is not entirely true that this will be a “decade of decline”, despite this being Labour’s latest populist campaigning message, while some people are doing “very nicely, thank you.” Labour may make progress in highlighting the genuine falls in living standards, but it forgets its core voters it is in deep trouble.