The Tories' cost of living offensive starts with a whimper

The pledge to cap rail fare increases at 6% is unlikely to impress commuters who have suffered 11 years of above-inflation rises.

At the Conservative conference last week, both David Cameron and George Osborne used their speeches to deride Ed Miliband's focus on the "cost-of-living crisis" on the grounds that it was a distraction from the primary task of 'fixing' the economy. But while doing so, the Tories have also recognised that the Labour leader is onto something. 

The day after Cameron's speech it was briefed that the party would soon launch a "blitz" on the cost of living and that Osborne had "identified water bills, rail fares and bank fees as areas where the government can act to help with household bills." After previously dismissing Miliband's proposed energy price freeze as "a gimmick", Cameron notably acknowledged on ITV's The Agenda that the Labour leader had "struck a chord" with the public. 

With real incomes not expected to rise until 2015 and not expected to return to their pre-crash levels until 2023, Tory MPs are rightly warning their leadership not to dismiss the living standards crisis as a temporary ailment that will pass now growth has returned. A recent ComRes survey found that voters think the Tories are more likely to maintain economic growth (42-33%) and to keep public spending under control (47-28%), but also that they believe their own family would be better off under Labour (41-31%). If one party takes a decisive advantage before 2015, it is likely to be that which wins the trust of the public on both issues.

The Tory fightback has begun today with the announcement that rail fare increases will be capped at 6%, with companies barred from raising individual fares by more than 2% above RPI inflation, rather than the current limit of 5% (provided that the average rise is 1% above inflation). Ministers say that the move could save commuters around £20 a month but with fares still set to rise above inflation for the eleventh year in a row (while average earnings fall for the sixth year in a row), it's rather small beer. Labour has been able to hit back by pointing out that the move doesn't go as far as its pledge to limit all fare increases to 1% above inflation and former transport secretary Andrew Adonis has noted that the cap is "less tight" than the one he imposed in 2009-10. 

The Tories are promising "week by week" announcements in the run-up to the Autumn Statement but they'll need to do better than this to wrest the initiative back from Miliband.

David Cameron leaves Number 10 Downing Street on October 7, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'll vote against bombing Isis - but my conscience is far from clear

Chi Onwurah lays out why she'll be voting against British airstrikes in Syria.

I have spent much of the weekend considering how I will vote on the question of whether the UK should extend airstrikes against Daesh/Isis from Iraq to Syria, seeking out and weighing the evidence and the risks.

My constituents have written, emailed, tweeted, facebooked or stopped me in the street to share their thoughts. Most recognised what a difficult and complex decision it is. When I was selected to be the Labour candidate for Newcastle Central I was asked what I thought would be the hardest part of being an MP.

I said it would be this.

I am not a pacifist, I believe our country is worth defending and our values worth fighting for. But the decision to send British Armed Forces into action is, rightly, a heavy responsibility.

For me it comes down to two key questions. The security of British citizens, and the avoidance of civilian casualties. These are separate operational and moral questions but they are linked in that it is civilian casualties which help fuel the Daesh ideology that we cannot respect and value the lives of those who do not believe as we do. There is also the important question of solidarity with the French in the wake of their grievous and devastating loss; I shall come to that later.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister as he set out the case for airstrikes on Thursday and I share his view that Daesh represents a real threat to UK citizens. However he did not convince me that UK airstrikes at this time would materially reduce that threat. The Prime Minister was clear that Daesh cannot be defeated from the air. The situation in Syria is complex and factionalised, with many state and non-state actors who may be enemies of our enemy and yet not our friend. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000 ground troops in the moderate Free Syrian Army but many experts dispute that number and the evidence does not convince me that they are in a position to lead an effective ground campaign. Bombs alone will not prevent Daesh obtaining money, arms and more recruits or launching attacks on the UK. The Prime Minister did not set out how we would do that, his was not a plan for security and peace in Syria with airstrikes a necessary support to it, but a plan to bomb Syria, with peace and security cited in support of it. That is not good enough for me.

Daesh are using civilian population as human shields. Syrians in exile speak of the impossibility of targeting the terrorists without hitting innocent bystanders. I fear that bombing Raqqa to eliminate Daesh may be like bombing Gaza to eliminate Hamas – hugely costly in terms of the civilian population and ultimately ineffectual.

Yet the evil that Daesh perpetrate demands a response. President Hollande has called on us to join with French forces. I lived in Paris for three years, I spent time in just about every location that was attacked two weeks ago, I have many friends living in Paris now, I believe the French are our friends and allies and we should stand and act in solidarity with them, and all those who have suffered in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and around the world.

But there are other ways to act as well as airstrikes. Britain is the only G7 country to meet its international development commitments, we are already one of the biggest humanitarian contributors to stemming the Syrian crisis, we can do more not only in terms of supporting refugees but helping those still in Syria, whether living in fear of Daesh or Assad. We can show the world that our response is to build rather than bomb. The Prime Minister argues that without taking part in the bombing we will not have a place at the table for the reconstruction. I would think our allies would be reluctant to overlook our financial commitment.

We can also do more to cut off Daesh funding, targeting their oil wells, their revenues, their customers and their suppliers. This may not be as immediately satisfying as bombing the terrorists but it is a more effective means of strangling them.

The vast majority of the constituents who contacted me were against airstrikes. I agree with them for the reasons I set out above. I should say that I have had no experience of bullying or attempts at intimidation in reaching this decision, Newcastle Central is too friendly, frank, comradely and Geordie a constituency for that. But some have suggested that I should vote against airstrikes to ensure a “clear conscience” ’. This is not the case. There will be more killings and innocent deaths whether there are UK airstrikes or not, and we will all bear a portion of responsibility for them.

A version of this article was originally sent to Chi Onwurah's constituents, and can be read here