The Guardian this morning has a story that tells us a great deal about the state of the New Labour Party. Apparently a 'fierce' debate has broken out on equality.

What passed for the Left in the Blair-Brown coalition is now attemping to drive the forthcoming election manifesto in a more traditionalist and 'progressive' direction.

We should always be cautious about this sort of story. It is 'kite-flying'. Proposals, as in this case, for an attack on high pay in the public sector and for increased taxes on family assets are flown high into the air to see if they can be sustained on the political breeze.

It does not take a cynic to see that the common denominator in these two proposals (touted to be responses to a report on equality commissioned by Deputy Prime Minister Hariet Harman) is money, both cutting its expenditure and raising more for the benefit of Government.

In the event of Labour returning to Government (increasingly unlikely but still not impossible), a 'progressive' Government is going to be forced to make massive spending cuts. It has to make this palatable to its core vote in the public sector.

These particular measures are designed to ensure that the highest ranks of the civil service set an example for lower level pay freezes and even cuts to preserve jobs across the sector and to raise funds from those in the upper middle classes who have managed to hold on to their assets in a recession.

They also increase the policy water between New Labour and the Tories. The Tories, if they have to make choices, will only make necessary tax increases to balance the budget. All their efforts, as we have suggested elsewhere, will be on cutting the fat in the public sector - and that means job losses.

We should not be too hard on New Labour but there is little idealism in the coming calculations. It is not just that New Labour is slipping towards unprecedentedly (at least since the 1930s) low shares of the vote or that a coming by-election seat needs to be held on a traditionalist Scottish Labour vote.

New Labour is now in survival mode. The next three or four months require tough calculations on how far to go towards Harman's 'progressive' agenda or whether to try a last-ditch effort to woo back the middle classes who voted for Blair.

The route that New Labour goes will tell us whether it thinks it can win or not. And by survival, we do not mean just as a Government, but as a party. The Sunday Times reported at the weekend on the depth of the party's financial crisis. Private sources have confirmed its seriousness.

Local parties are resistant to putting their assets on the line as guarantees for bank loans and they are politically right to do so. If the property assets in the localities fall into the banks' hands and are then sold off, the material infrastructure of a national party could be destroyed over night.

On the other hand, the trades unions are not in a position to bail out the party or offer their own guarantees. Their own memberships would not be universally happy and may have legal cause to challenge any funding that goes beyond the approved - approval for good money after bad is unlikely.

The pressure is also growing for increased working class representation on the Left. The loyalist representative of the Labour Representation Committee got a bit of a rough ride at an RMT-sponsored conference on the issue this weekend when she advocated working within New Labour.

Given their own limited resources and the fear that an incoming Tory Government will legislate their independent political role out of existence if they make a mistake, the trades unions must deliver a cogent traditionalist result for angry workers in a recession in return for any bail-out.

The 'progressive' agenda, increasingly associated with the trades union political officers, the New Labour Left (not to be confused with the 'real' Left) and the feminists, requires Government. Progressive Government requires progressive control of the main centre-left party.

The weight of criticism from both Left and the Tories simultaneously for a simple bail-out of a failed and defeated non-progressive New Labour Party would open up vistas of both division within and legislative action against the trades unions too terrible to contemplate.

Under current circumstances what this means is that the progressives are already making their own gamble on loss of office, driving legislation like the Equalities Bill and the anti-prostitution clauses in the Police & Crime Bill hard and seeking to position themselves for the civil war that will emerge on defeat.

This also helps to explain why an anti-inequality strategy, unexceptionable by historic Labour standards, appears to be being promoted at precisely the wrong time in history - when the Party is at an all-time low in the polls and is ready to lose power. Its purpose is not policy but power.

The puzzling thing to historians and idealists (though not to those who know the Party) might be - why now? The right time to promote such an agenda would have been 2001 when the Party had proven itself competent in office and had a reasonable mandate for a radical agenda.

Indeed the first reaction of angry centre-leftists seems to be not optimism and pleasure at the shift to the agenda that they have fought for but cynicism and renewed anger at the timing. History suggests that this is an opposition agenda, to be ditched when office can be smelled in the winds once again.

The active promotion of a full anti-inequality agenda, even if it gets past Brown and Darling which is to be doubted, moght well stop the drift of centre-left activists and voters from inertia or for voting for other parties. It may even push up Labour's vote by a few percentage points to ensure its survival.

But this is a time of recession when most middle classes are still filled with economic anxiety and distrustful of Government (and most voters see themselves as middle class).

Many small businesses are surviving only by dipping into family reserves. A tax assault on reserve wealth, while Government is bailing out banks, strikes this writer as the height of political ineptitude and a precursor to tax revolt.

Implicit threats to redistribute pensions and then transfer the added value of the house from their children to an inefficient 'bloated' state are going to go down like the proverbial lead balloon. We can be sure that neither Tories nor Liberal Democrats are going to be silent on the matter.

The real purpose of 'equality' promotion at this time is to lay the ground work for the preservation of jobs in the Labour-voting public sector and regions and to mobilise those same workers to vote in their interest.

What was once a class war between workers and bosses is in danger of degenerating into a class war between those working in the market and those protected by the State. The margins of the latter may have nowhere else to go but New Labour within a few months.

We doubt whether Brown or his circle will let this happen but the progressive rhetoric is useful for bamboozling old loyalists and public sector activists into a re-commitment to a Party that is about to lose Government or may only regain it on terms that are unlikely to deliver their agenda.

The Harman Report appears in January so it is interesting to see the debate hotting up as early as November, indicating that something is going on behind the scenes to manage its content. January is convenient because its recommendations can be assessed for inclusion in New Labour's manifesto.

This manifesto will probably have more union input that any since the early 1990s. There are signs that, having been corralled into employment rights since 1996, union political officers are chafing to get a grip once again on social policy and that means the equality agenda.

The probability is that this report will be fine-tuned in content and presentation to make it 'realistic' so that what we will get in the end is a manifesto that drives the equality agenda in populist terms but which contains nothing that would genuinely unnerve Middle England or offer hostages to the Tories.

The prescriptions will be genuine enough but they will boil down to cover for redirecting funds into the white working class areas where New Labour is losing ground to the BNP and extending the tax base to allow New Labour more leeway in holding its attenuated coalition together.

But the stakes for Southern Middle England, potentially overwhelmed by the interests of London, the regions and the public sector vote, grow proportionately, especially if the 'egalitarians' gain power within the Party without an economic recovery funding their ambitions. Redistribution will mean just that.

If the equality 'punt' is managed into something that sells well into the mass of the population who are not well paid or with significant assets (and there is evidence that it might), then a revived New Labour Government now or in a few years could seriously damage upper middle class wealth.

Given Tory grassroots anger at Cameron's decision on Europe, a lot of middle class conservative-minded voters are going to have to choose between their heart (on the national question) and their wealth. History shows that they will tend to choose their wealth.

We are about to see the re-launch of the Government’s policy platform, an event originally intended when Brown came to power as his ‘vision’ but pushed aside by the credit crisis. It is now made necessary by the indisputable fact of an election within the next year.

What is interesting is that Brown’s position is now so weak that he had to have the general outline of the platform pre-announced by Lord Mandelson, an unelected but powerful ‘Deputy Prime Minister’ in all but name, in order to build some momentum.

Building Britain’s Future

Later today, the Prime Minister launches the main policy document. It has the typical New Labour-ish title, Building Britain’s Future. It is believed that the main theme will be the promotion of increased consumer choice in public services.

This, for those with long memories, reminds one of John Major’s consumer-directed response to an economic crisis in an earlier era. John Major lost his election, amidst a climate of ‘sleaze’.

Mandelson is also suggesting (a position fully shared with the Prime Minister) that the Government intends no compromise on its New Labour message. There will be no serious concessions to the Left of the Party just for the sake of Party unity.

This rings true. Labour solidarity after the disastrous June elections has now kicked in. Any bloodletting will come only after an election. Brown has everything to win and nothing to lose personally in sticking to the original narrative of the 1990s.

In his warm-up act, Mandelson put forward a programme that is still not entirely credible to the analytical community. Mandelson is claiming that, despite the massive borrowing required by the credit crisis, New Labour will spend more and undertake better reforms than the Tory Party

His authority, which he has earned rightfully despite significant party unpopularity and occasional errors of judgement, is being used to direct Government communications at the wider population (where he is better liked). The pointy-heads are less important when votes are being courted.

That this PR drive is also intended to consolidate the party’s wobbling traditional support is indicated by Mandelson’s one concession to Left critics - he says that the privatisation of Royal Mail might not take place before the Party Conference because of lack of space in the legislative timetable.

Coming Clean on Spending?

The bet for New Labour is on observable recovery by the Spring of 2010 but there is still widespread concern that New Labour is failing to ‘come clean’ on the scale and direction of future spending cuts.

This suspicion grew with the news that the Chancellor decided to abandon plans for the comprehensive spending review. This should have been held this year but it is apparently being deferred until after the General Election. The decision seemed to have been confirmed today by Mandelson.

The Government is engaged in a massive political punt on the economy. What the Government (through Mandelson) is claiming is that the ‘worst is behind us’. A return to growth before the election will, he claims, allow Government to maintain spending and investment.

This is a very big ‘trust us’ from the Government that failed to predict the original crisis and when the general trend from responsible analysts is to see global growth as slow and vulnerable - and Britain’s fiscal situation to be on a knife-edge.

It is now difficult to convey the general mood of the country during what amounts to a phony war between its people and its government. The expectation of most thinking people is of the chickens eventually coming home to roost on public spending and industrial restructuring.

To make things worse, news is now feeding back from overseas that the country has become a laughing stock over the political expenses stories, It is not so much the fact of corruption (lots of places are corrupt) as the petty and pervasive nature of the corruption, what with duck houses, moats and all.

A more serious effect is that, under New Labour's progressivism, the UK has been wandering around the tax havens and emerging countries of the world moralizing on fraud and corruption. Now it has been shown to have feet of clay.

It scarcely assists the UK’s moral standing in relation to its ‘enemies’ – whether Russia, Iran or Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. As we write, FCO officials are said to be (according to the FT) deleting those parts of speeches that call for higher standards of governance lest they cause mirth.

www.tppr.co.uk

www.pendrywhite.com

If you want to follow TPPR events and commentary, try http://twitter.com/TPPRNews

If you want to follow Pendry White events and commentary, try http://twitter.com/PendryWhite