It doesn't have to be this way

David Cameron's Tories, egged on and supported by their allies in the Murdoch press and the Institute of Directors, can barely conceal their glee at the prospect of taking the axe to public services.

David Cameron seems to have decided that Brown's New Labour government is so unpopular that threats to cut public services, previously seen as electoral suicide, can now be promised without risking his chance of getting into Number Ten.

And let us make no mistake about this, should Cameron march into Downing Street next year the cuts, when they come, will be deep and far-reaching. That George Osborne has promised business leaders that, "After three months in power we will be the most unpopular government since the war" should send shivers down the country's collective spine. Caring conservatism? We should be so lucky.

With the Tories touting their cuts throughout the media, the Lib-Dems, and now New Labour, are rushing to catch up: joining the cuts stampede albeit promising a more gentle application of the scalpel.

Now of course there are certainly areas of public spending that could be cut with very few tears being shed: the replacement of Trident, ID cards, the occupation of Afghanistan, new aircraft carriers, the Eurofighter. Cut these and the world would almost certainly be a better place.

But there is no way that we should not accept the loss of child benefits, Education Maintenance Allowances, cuts in the NHS or schools budgets to be the price we must pay for rescuing the banking system from its own greed.

While Cameron targets the pensions of mostly low paid public sector workers, the abolition of the higher rate tax relief given on the pensions of the rich would make much more sense. As Polly Toynbee pointed out in the Guardian recently, "taxpayers contribute 10 times more in pension tax relief to the richest 1% of earners than the state pays to all retired public servants. If Labour made proper use of this killer fact, they would promise instead to abolish all higher-rate income tax pension subsidies, bringing in £6bn - far more than public pensions cost."

But sadly New Labour has spent so long cuddling up to the rich - while denigrating it's natural working class supporters in the trade union movement, that it seems incapable of using any such 'killer facts' against the Tory onslaught. Relying on Peter Mandelson to spin them out of election defeat is a recipe for disaster - and while it may cost Labour MPs their jobs in their tens or even hundreds, it will be the young, the sick, the elderly and the poor who will suffer in their millions.

In these circumstances Respect will continue to make the case for public spending against the promised cuts of a revived Thatcherite Conservatism. We will work will anyone and everyone on the progressive spectrum to counter the threat of a Tory victory.

But it is not our job to rescue a moribund Labour Party. In the coming election we will throw our resources into getting Respect members, not least Salma Yaqoob, George Galloway and Abjol Miah elected to parliament. We will need them to raise the banner of public provision against the new orthodoxy of further privatisation, austerity and attacks on pensions - whoever win the next election. And because we believe in the advancement of the totality of the Left we will support those who we believe will stand up to the future cutters whether that be Labour MPs such as John MacDonnell or Jeremy Corbyn, Greens such as Caroline Lucas or other progressives candidates who may yet emerge.

The Respect vision - of peace and social justice - is one of which we are proud and we believe will become ever more relevant and important in the coming months.

We do not have to accept the mantra of cuts, cuts and more cuts. The fight to defend public services has begun.

Clive Searle
Respect National Secretary