‘To hold power, the Labour Party had to abandon fundamental ideas, like the nationalisation of the means of production and to cheer on private corporations and financial speculators and swindlers.’

• FOR 30 years essential services were owned by the public, there was a compromise between capital and labour, there was significant union membership and collective bargaining and wages were linked to productivity.

Higher education was free, the arts and sciences flourished and these benefits of civilisation complemented rising standards of living. There were no food banks or rough sleepers.

Then along came neoliberalism and class warfare started again, along with a harsh ordering of society. To hold power, the Labour Party had to abandon fundamental ideas, like the nationalisation of the means of production and to cheer on private corporations and financial speculators and swindlers.

The current government is the same as all the other neoliberals; anticipated changed that favour the people over the corporations, we learn, cannot be funded.

And as always, the problem, they explain, is because the previous government left a massive debt. This crisis is always, as they explain, because the state is just the same as a family with a limited household budget. And again, as always, austerity has to be imposed.

All this, of course, can be disputed. But out of curiosity, we can reverse the idea. If a state acts as a family, let’s see a family that acts like a state.

Let’s begin with Johnny, the favourite of both Mummy and Daddy. He must have his collection sports cars, private jets, yachts, a private island and lots of money to go gambling with. All this is paid for by cast-iron protected funding.

Unfortunately, this means Suzy and Betty, the twins, can’t have any pudding and poor baby Davy has to eat what he can find in the dustbin. The only reason for getting extra money would be some emergency, like paying Johnny’s debt at the casino.

However, the absurdity of fiction cannot match the destructive absurdity of reality, when those on zero-hours contracts should be grateful they are not on universal credit and those paying to live in damp, rat-infested basements should be grateful they are not sleeping on the street.

Some might ask: is there a law against this ongoing creation of poverty? The answer is yes: the UN Charter, which was signed by the UK.

Article 55 upholds the promotion of higher standards of living, full employment and condition of economic and social development. The UN Charter is an instrument of international law. All UN members are bound by it.

So, could not the two-child benefit cap be scrapped and the £3billion allocated to keep the slaughter going in the Ukraine be spent on getting all children out of poverty?

And could not the government, in deal­ing with the rich receiving unnecessary winter fuel payment simply tax the benefit or if it does not like the thought of taxing benefits, at least be consis­tent and initiate means-tested VAT exemption for those on universal credit?

RD WARREN, NW1