The IFS has recently released a report criticising the Coalition’s claim that the budget was “progressive” by stating that it will hit the poor hardest. Instead of criticising the IFS’ work, I believe it is more appropriate to discuss why any genuinely progressive government needs to reform the country and that only through reform can we tackle the structural problems in society.

The first tranche of reform came in the 1980s with the major liberalisation of the British economy. This freed up enterprise and risk takers and created a new and burgeoning middle class. It also was in an era of unbelievable ideological battles between the forces of collectivism and those of liberalism. Ultimately the latter won, but it left a bitter legacy for millions of British people who only remember unemployment, wasted lives and broken families.

The second tranche of reform begins today and we have learnt from the experience of the 1980s. The most vulnerable to change in society cannot be cast off because while some rise to the challenge, others fall by the wayside. The Coalition has been explicit in focusing on the needs of the most vulnerable in society at the expense of “easy” reform.

The most vulnerable in society are not just the poorest, but also the aspirational and middle classes. The recession has resulted in many Britons with lower incomes than before. Higher living costs mean that many are wary of what the future holds. People who have mortgages know that the low rates will not continue forever, but are fearful that they will not only be unable to afford higher interest rates but that they will be unable to realise any capital gains on the sale of their property. Indeed, the most vulnerable are not only those who are reliant on government largesse, but are many who have barely survived the most brutal downturn since the 1930s.

The people I have identified above are not only the most vulnerable; they are the forgotten people in Britain. They are forgotten because they do not have unions and others advocating for them. They are forgotten because the media bypass them. They are forgotten because they get the occasional outpouring of righteous indignation from politicians, only to see any promise of a New Jerusalem soon whither away to the stark reality of modern life. Luckily, these people are now at the heart of the Coalition’s agenda. Rather than the patronising smile of a Labour politician handing out cheques and then abandoning them to their fate, they will get a Coalition politician who understands the problems and the struggles and who does not leave them to fend for themselves.

The Coalition will be undertaking a second tranche of structural reform. The first achieved a liberalisation of the economy. The second is about converting the State into local community organisations and about achieving structural social change. The biggest problem with the past Government was their assumption that every problem could be handled centrally and that a State is most effective when dictating outcomes irrespective of the needs of individuals. This is simply wrong.

No two communities are the same and therefore public services cannot be universally applied in the same way. “Equality of outcome” is not universal public services with no difference in what is being offered, but rather public services that match the needs of the local community, that are socially and economically sustainable and that acknowledge the uniqueness of local communities. This idea, commonly known as the “Big Society”, combines the best of Conservative and Liberal intellectual thought. It also learns the bitter lessons of previous years and the accumulated wisdom of past experience.

Welfare reform is a major step to change the social culture of this country towards effort, hard-work and enterprise. The State now acts as a giant spin cycle with money coming in from taxpayers only to be spat out to the same taxpayers. This creates a reliance on government handouts for financial security irrespective of need. It also creates a reliance on handouts to maintain a standard of living. This will now change.

Education reform will see the most radical transformation in schooling in generations. It will allow individual’s unique talents to be properly appreciated in schools that match those talents rather than be forced to certain schools as a glorified social engineering project. Do not forget that the current system is designed for social engineering – yet humanity is too complex, too dynamic, to be fine-tuned like a motor. By forcing parents to go to a bad school the inevitable outcomes are parents who pretend to hold religious beliefs or to move house to secure a good school place. Parents care more about their children than the State ever could. These school reforms will help parents without punishing them. It is about liberating families across the country from the dead hand of government bureaucracy.

The economic reforms are about making our public finances sustainable for the long-term. We are facing massive challenges in welfare, education, pensions, energy, infrastructure and many other areas. Raising expectations about permanently high government spending is unrealistic, is unsustainable and is unfair. What on earth is fair about leaving the next generation with over £1 trillion in debt?

This government is progressive. It combines the best Liberal and Conservative traditions and despite what people think, it is a government that will create sustainable, long-term jobs in the face of an economic catastrophe and will help the forgotten people of this country.

In the short term, the Government will be judged by successfully dealing with the catastrophic financial situation left behind by its predecessor.  In the long term, the Government will be judged on making Britain a more socially mobile and open society.

Social mobility matters.

It matters that so many people are not fulfilling their potential or aspirations.

It matters that life chances are more likely to be decided at birth than at any time since the 1920s.

It matters that, although only 7% of children go to private school, such schools account for almost 80% of judges, 70% of finance directors and barristers; 55% of Tory MPs; and over 50% of top journalists.

That is why the appointment of Alan Milburn as social mobility ‘czar’ is to be welcomed.  At the moment, after 13 years of a Government that promised so much but delivered so little, Britain one of the least socially mobile countries in the world and less mobile than at any time since the war.

The report of the cross party commission (which I praised at the time) headed up by Alan Milburn for the last Government was a devastating indictment of the previous Government’s failure to act on the issue.  It said that, “access to the professions is becoming the preserve of a smaller and smaller part of the social spectrum.”  This is something that a highly talented man such as Alan Milburn feels strongly about and it is only to be applauded that he will be avoiding the tribal taunts of members of the opposition about the fact he wants to do all that he can to help improve the life chances of the poorest.

Social mobility is also something I care deeply about.  I went to a North Eastern comprehensive school (probably of the kind that Tony Blair would have derided as ‘bog standard’).  I saw so many exceptional people who were let down by the system and didn’t always achieve their potential.

There are some people who suggest that an attachment to enhancing social mobility is ‘un-Conservative’.  They couldn’t be more wrong.  It wasn’t un-Conservative when Churchill talked of creating a floor below which none could fall and a sky through which all could rise.

What is more Conservative than ensuring that each and every human being is able to fulfil their potential.    What can be more Conservative than raising people’s aspirations? A modern economy needs highly skilled people to prosper.  What can be more wasteful than seeing so many people not fulfilling their potential?

Once again the idea of not changing the clocks, changing them permanently, doubling the change or moving to some other time zone rears its head…

I don’t see that it makes much difference, really – you get the same number of hours of light and dark no matter what your watch says. But if it’s a serious discussion we’re after, here’s a thought – why not, for example, say to the Scottish Executive that England would benefit from using BST all year round, but Scotland could decide for itself whether or not to use it?

Or alternatively, if the change isn’t made, schools and offices in some places could – shock, horror – change their own working hours so that they had more light in the mornings, or whatever it is they want?

There’s no real reason for everyone to go from home to work or school for 9am, just as there’s no real reason for everyone to leave at the same time.

You could have micro-localism, where businesses, schools etc decided to start (for example) at 11am in the winter, and at 7 am in summer.

I think I like that idea a lot better than once again repeating the arguments from the 1970s…

I’m a bit late to this but – why on earth all the ruckus about ‘free’ milk?

Firstly, it’s not free. Secondly, ministers have been asked to suggest ways to reduce costs and get better value out of taxpayers’ money. And thirdly, ‘because David Cameron isn’t keen on the idea’ is not a good enough reason not to do something.

The process by which we should be deciding what to spend money on goes like this:

1)      Is this an absolute life or death necessity? Is it something the government MUST provide, is it something that’s a nice thing to have, will someone else provide it better or cheaper?

2)      What are the benefits? Do sufficient people benefit?

3)      Can we achieve the same thing cheaper? OR can we achieve the same thing in a different way?

I’ve discussed before (YEARS ago) why we need to re-examine what the state decides to do with taxpayers’ money. But more than that, given the dire circumstances we are in, I think this government has an obligation to do this from the bottom up – so, not “What can we cut?” but rather “What must we maintain?”

Delightfully, the government seemed to want to try that when it launched the consultations on public spending. But rather disappointingly, every suggestion seems to have been met with either ‘we’re already planning that’ or ‘we aren’t interested in doing that’ so I do wonder what the point was.

As with this furore over school milk, if this government is going to live up to its rhetoric on devolving power, it needs to make some decisions about how it handles media coverage.

Either it cannot stand a word of criticism, in which case they might as well ditch localism, the Big Society, reducing the tax burden and empowering citizens. Or it’s willing and able to take a bit of a battering because it believes in those things. But it can’t have it both ways, and currently it is being damaged by being willing to float radical ideas but then unwilling to discuss them when a newspaper gets in a fankle about them.

There are discussions all over the place about the threats to the Coalition itself. All anyone I speak to wants to discuss is how long it will last. Labour seem to think if they are nasty enough to the Lib Dems, they will eventually see ’sense’ and return to the fold.

So what are the ingredients for the Coalition to last? I’ve already discussed the structural and emotional elements, but there’s something else – just enough dissent from the memberships of both parties, and just enough uncomfortable concessions on policy from the leaderships of both parties, and just enough disagreement between everyone to ensure that voters still see the two parties as separate entities.

Hence, for example, Nick Clegg’s declaration that the war in Iraq was illegal. Hence the public discussions over a graduate tax. Hence as well Simon Hughes’ comments that David Cameron was only floating the idea of changes to the way council tenancies work.

This is all to the good. Firstly it is important that discussions be had on the big issues of the day – I don’t want a bunch of sheep who don’t think about anything, I want politicians who are prepared to be radical and argue their case. And secondly, it’s important that difficult decisions are seen to be taken in the public interest.

So like Goldilocks and her porridge, there needs to be not too much but also not too little friction so that voters understand that the Coalition is there to change things, there to argue the case for their own views, but – crucially – willing and able to come to the right decisions in the national interest.

It won’t always be comfortable – even Goldilocks burned her mouth – but in the end, we need to acknowledge that not everyone is right all the time, and it’s better to come to a conclusion after frank discussions than to steamroller through with no thought for the consequences.