"The IFS is studiously neutral when it comes to politics, which lends it extra value when the Government has swapped analysis for spin."
City Comment, Daily Telegraph

If this is what the staunchly Tory supporting Daily Telegraph is saying about the Institute of Fiscal Studies then we can safely assume the Forty something research group has a cast iron alibi when it comes to charges of bias. In fact I would wager it has to err on the side of being overly critical of the Government if is to impress the Right Wing Press.

Something that Gordon Brown has found out to his cost especially over the Gold sale fiasco when he said; “As every government finds sometimes to its cost, [IFS is] an institution that is rigorous to a tee”.

The reason I have been careful to present the credentials of the IFS is because what they have to say about the Tories attitude to poverty is important, and needs to be out there when people are deciding where to place their X. The next Election will be the most crucial in a generation and we must make it clear to the electorate what is really at stake.

In a sickening display of faux compassion David Cameron whipped himself and the Tory Conference into a very weird and frankly disturbing frenzy against the Labour Government.

“Labour: you're the ones that did this to our society. So don't you dare lecture us about poverty. You have failed and it falls to us, the modern Conservative party to help the poorest in our country today."

Once I had stopped rolling around the floor laughing I took the time to rewind my Sky+ to check out that what I had heard had really fallen from the lips of a Tory Leader. Yup. It was true. The Sun fell for it, as did the Express and the Daily Mail, plus Nick Robinson the former Young Tory Leader turned BBC political editor declared on the Today Programme that the de toxification of the Tory Party was almost complete.

Just hang on a sec. The Tories are claiming to be the Party of the Poor.

As Forrest Gump might have put it, “How can this be!”

I am proud of our record on this issue. Alright, it’s far from perfect but that’s what Governance is about, setting the agenda and trying to deliver outcomes. If you can measure them, all the better, but beware of obession with one target (four hour max at A and E) doing damage in another area (blocking at the AAU end where you can be left lying in distress overnight with no help or even monitoring). This is a case where a laudable motive has inadvertently led to a knock on negative impact elsewhere.

This is the point about the Tories lamentable attempt to paint us as the Party who have increased unfairness and inequality. It simply isn’t true and we are going to appear like a man climbing an ice sheet whilst teathered to an anvil as far as any press coverage goes.

“According to Cameron this research done by the IFS shows that income inequality was slightly higher in 2007-8 than it was in 1996-7, and the income of the poorest fifth of the population fell over the same period.”

Duh. Recession. Spike. Not hard to work that one out eh Dave?

Why not look at this across the breadth of Labour’s period in power? Not so good old boy, for you that is. For you, the Party that wants to give £2 billion to 3,000 millionaires in your first Budget. But actually good news for our target demographic, the bottom 1/5 whose comparitive wealth gap has narrowed when compared to the median. So stick that in your pipe Davey Boy.

Back to the IFS guys and gals.

"Income inequality rose substantially during the 1980s", the IFS notes. "There was also a large rise in relative poverty during the 1980s, which compares with a fall under Labour since 1997, the first time this has happened since the 1974/79 Labour Government. In 1976 the gap was at it’s narrowest."

Next, on the vexed issue of tax, the IFS says;

"Direct tax and benefit changes made by the previous Conservative governments acted to increase income inequality, whereas those made by since 1997-8 have benefitted the poor by more than the rich. Conservative policy on inheritance tax will perpetuate inequality and will cost money that could have been spent on the poor."