And yet Miliband has stated he agrees with a lot of these cuts, we have gone from New Labour to Newer labour, a party more Tory then it likes to think.

The only argument with Labour is not that cutting is wrong or the poorest will be kicked to death only that it should be done slower, a slow death not a quick death.

The major problem for people is listening to labour tell us they would give back child benefit to the rich middle class, not a word about how many disabled with cancer or other life changing disabilities will be helped.

Vote Tory get kicked, vote Newer labour get kicked slower.

Perhaps they care about the definition of the concept, and of redefining it to suit their purposes? In his attempt to redefine the concept Menzies Campbell argued that ‘fairness was subjective’, with the inference that the coalition can argue about fairness and be equally ‘right’ alongside more traditional understandings of the idea, such as socialists have used. The coalitions actions are an eloquent expression of their understanding of that concept, which differ from mine for instance, however I would argue that differing interpretation is not new and that democracy has long been seen as a methodology for transforming the subjective into consensus.

Real power comes from being in power for a long enough time to change the mentality of the public.

Not so many years ago the minimum wage was controversial, poverty was not, and “life’s not fair” was a political assertion rather than lament – Those views now all seem out of date.

That doesn’t mean the parties have changed anything but their language. If the tories and liberals were ever progressive Labour would never have needed to form. The CSR, despite the language, suggests that hasn’t changed.

But that the language has changed means the public will judge government by new measures.

But the people on the min wage still need so much in hand outs income support or tax credits or what ever to live it’s not the ideal formula is it, the idea was to lift people out of poverty, you can pay somebody a £1 an hour if the state has to then make it up to a living wage.

Just because the tories say they care about fairness does not make it true.

Just like they said they had no plans to raise VAT.

They are lying sacks of shit. Their claims of fairness is just spin. And they are spinning like tops at the moment.

Listen to Miliband now and you will see how far labour are from the Tories any closure they be having bloody sex. who would be on top the question.

The Tories don’t care about fairness, they care about appearing to care about fairness. Actions count for far more than words and if they really cared about fairness they wouldn’t behave in such an unfair way

As has been said at 2, ‘fairness’ is a relative concept that is tricky to pin down and is created in the eye of the beholder. Some would say it’s ‘fair’ for everyone to be able to enjoy the fruits of their own labour, others would say it’s ‘fair’ for everyone to have equal access to goods and services. These two are impossible to reconcile, so in reality most people support a halfway point between them.

‘Real power comes from being in power for a long enough time to change the mentality of the public.

Not so many years ago the minimum wage was controversial, poverty was not, and “life’s not fair” was a political assertion rather than lament – Those views now all seem out of date.’

That change in ‘mentality’ has had little to do with those in power: New Labour and the Coalition are lagging behind the change in attitudes towards poverty, not driving it through. Framing discourse in such a way that it doesn’t at least pay lip service to ‘fairness’ would seem anachronistic.

Fairness is like an elephant in as much as its bloody hard to describe but easy to recognise. I can’t see anything remotely fair in leaving the poorest destitue and destroying the basic provisions of a civilised society while doing nothing at all about tax evasion let alone avoidance, a corporation tax handout that will benefit the biggest banks and the mysterious Vodafone giveaway. This new definition of fairness is just sophistry and spin from Cameron trying to look less of a bastard and pathetic little Nik Nak Clegg trying to persuade people he’s not a sellout

Shatterface

I think you are just wrong about that.

I dislike Labour’s lack of ambition in power – But because of that I’m acutely aware of what they achieved when they showed some.

The minimum wage was one area they got it absolutely right. The public took some convincing, it was highly controversial, and they ploughed ahead anyway with the support of some unions. The natural landscape of British politics then changed.

Likewise on poverty – besides a handful of utterly marginalised campaign groups – no one was interested in judging the Tories on poverty in 1992. Even by 1997 that election had almost no mention of it.

Only when Labour were in power did they start to give high profile speeches on it and set targets that made the public judge them against results.

Robert

Ideal formula? Is there an ideal formula? Do you have an ideal formula? My god, quickly, tell the world what it is and we shall erect statues in your honour, made of gold, one hundred feet high, in every city on Earth.

What is it?

Or more sensibly – don’t be silly. There is no ideal formula. Politics is the art of the possible.

I’ll overlook the snide tone because the basic point is a good one. I was quite taken aback by Cameron’s speech to his party conference a year ago, when he was almost quoting the Spirit Level at the Conservatives, and the delegates were all a little unsure of whether they should be clapping or laughing.

The CSR is a lot fairer than anyone would expect from a government with Conservatives in it, and while I think a most of the credit for that should go to the Lib Dems, there is also the sense that the door is more open than it used to be.

What I would like to see is a comparison (Gini index, say) between 2015 and 2006, as the proportion of GDP taken in taxation will be about the same in those two years. That is a better comparison than comparing Labour’s efforts while building the deficit to the Coalition’s efforts while reducing it.

And the left will have to think about what it is for if it can no longer own fairness.

Do keep up…….

We need to think of poverty in relative terms – the fact that some people lack those things which others in society take for granted.

So I want this message to go out loud and clear – the Conservative Party recognises, will measure and will act on relative poverty.

David Cameron, November 2006.

Joe

What evidence is there that it has anything to do with the Lib Dems?

After all – the Tories have been talking about fairness now for a few years (since Cameron took charge) and I seen no CSR measures that are LibDem inspired impositions.

It looks much as one would expect a Cameron CSR to look.

Indeed just as plausible as the “Lib Dems stayed their hand” view is that the Lib Dems serve as a shield that were the tories without, they would have to tread far more carefully (fairly) to maintain public support.