Austerity is a political choice not an economic necessity. When the Chancellor rose to his feet at the emergency Budget in July, and when he does so for his Spending Review in October, what is being put forward is an ideologically-driven rolling back of the state. The analysis published today by the TUC reveals how the Budget gives money to the rich, but takes away from the poor. This is the Conservative project, dressed up in the post-crisis language of budget deficits and national debt for extra impetus. Inequality doubled under the Thatcher government, and her heirs seem to be doing all they can to ensure that legacy is extended.
The 'National Living Wage' - a top-up to the minimum wage for workers aged 25 and over - was the rabbit pulled from the Chancellor's Red Box at the Summer Budget back in July. But beyond the headline figures published alongside it, it was hard to be sure who the main beneficiaries would be. A new report by the Resolution Foundation breaks down just who is set to gain, where and by how much.
The UK is in the midst of a productivity crisis. While employment has finally recovered to pre-recession levels, and those in work typically work long hours, productivity remains low. But how is this possible?
After "one hundred days of Dave," the government has already served up some good policies for entrepreneurs. But our position as one of the best countries to start and grow a business is not inevitable, and it is relative. Talent is increasingly mobile: if entrepreneurs can build a bigger, better business elsewhere, they probably will.
I think I have the answer to two of Britain's biggest problems: shortage of housing and concern over immigration. Golf courses. No, not build more of them. Build on them: affordable homes for those who need them, and temporary accommodation units for refugees and asylum-seekers.
With near record employment in this country, and long term unemployment at its lowest level since 2009, there are more opportunities than ever for people to make the move from benefits to work, and that is why we must continue to press ahead with our reforms. We're building a welfare state that is finally fit for purpose. A system that supports people when they need it, but doesn't trap them into a life on benefits. A system that rewards work, instead of dependency. This is what this one nation Government is delivering.
Before polling day I was looking forward to a woman being secretary of state for energy and climate change after the election, but I hoped it would be me not Conservative Amber Rudd... To round it all off, we heard the ideological underpinning of many of these changes from the Secretary of State when she gave her first major speech on climate change last month. Divisive and short-sighted, it sought to dial down our distinctive leadership on climate change just as China, the US and much of the rest of the world makes bold moves, and instead sympathized with "the suspicion of those who see climate action as some sort of cover for anti-growth, anti-capitalist, proto-socialism"... As Amber and Andrea enjoy their holiday taking in some summer sun, beware. Winter is coming.
So, "If you want to work hard and want to get on" in life, I am not too sure how Cameron is going to make that any easier for you than he did when he was first elected in 2010. The past '100 days of Blue' have showed me that, yet again, 'nothing much' has changed for young people and as many of our life prospects fall further, inequality will inevitably rise in our generation.
The image of our fellow citizens queueing out of desperation for help from a food bank became a defining symbol of life at the bottom of the pile under the coalition, although this life at the bottom had begun under Labour. It became increasingly clear in the second half of the parliament, therefore, that if any issue were to present itself as the coalition's soft underbelly, it would be hunger.
We were promised a government for the blue collar. What we got is one for the blue bloods. In his first 100 days, Cameron has been blistering alright, tearing his way through the provisions and protections that provide some modicum of fairness in a country increasingly scarred by inequality. Power and resources in this country are being shaken up in profoundly anti-democratic ways.
Tax is too important to be left to very narrow interests, and yet that is what has happened in the UK and worldwide over the last few years. It is high time that this was changed: our tax system is far from progressive, and serves the few rather than the many. The left must fight to make it fairer, and these measures are a good place to start.
What we've seen over the past few months adds up to nothing less than a full frontal attack on the renewable energy sector. It will have ramifications beyond the UK, if the UK does not have any real credible domestic action to tackle climate change, the government will lose any influence over others at the crucial climate talks in Paris at the end of the year.
It is the core of our values to treat people equally and decently. We believe in paying a fair wage for all co-workers regardless of how old they are and that also takes into account where they live. We agree with the Living Wage Foundation's definition of the "Living Wage", and whilst we think that the government has taken a step in the right direction, it doesn't go far enough.
In August 2007 the storm clouds that gathered ahead of the global financial crises came out of a clear blue sky. Eight years later, fixed on Greece we anxiously monitor the horizon for signs of another downturn but could we be facing the wrong way, with the hurricane coming from the east?
Greece has been adopted as a cause célèbre by Eurosceptics who have portrayed the debt situation as an example of EU and ECB bullying, an assault on democracy and the Greek people... Yet this approach is fraught with danger, especially here in the UK when a referendum is so close.
When Labour MPs voted against the Budget this week our opposition was based on rejection of specific policies, when it is the fundamentals of the economy and terms of political debate we must challenge.