HAROLD WILSON said that a week is a long time in politics. No doubt that is true. But the Autumn Statement delivered by Jeremy Hunt is likely to dominate politics and the economy for the next two years — and possibly well beyond — unless there is a radical alternative proposed.  

This is because the scale and structure of the austerity imposed are quite beyond what we have seen before. Economists tell us that in sheer size, this set of measures was much larger than the austerity imposed by David Cameron and George Osborne.  

At the same time, it is also planned to be much longer, with many of the measures postponed outright until after the next election and only beginning in 2025. Any claim that this is not a deepening of austerity is sheer nonsense.  

Every Tory-led government since 2010 has added new austerity measures — but what lies ahead is far worse.  

Some commentators have been distracted by the total level of government spending, and have assumed that higher government outlays are an end to austerity. This was especially true during the furlough.  

But large bailouts for firms while most workers’ wages are cut by 20 per cent, while the millions of self-employed and others got nothing at all, is simply another form of austerity.  

Properly understood, austerity is not determined by the level of government spending at all. It is the transfer of incomes and wealth from workers and the poor to big business and the rich. By this definition, the latest Autumn Statement was austerity on steroids.  

The figure of £55 billion in combined spending cuts and tax increases was widely reported. However, the new bailout for the banks, amounting to £60bn, has hardly received any publicity at all — and nothing like the coverage it should have.  

From the numbers alone, it is clear that this latest bout of austerity was not necessary at all — even in terms of the government’s own distorted fiscal rules. The bailout for the banks should have been dropped altogether, with no public spending cuts or taxes on ordinary people at all — and there would have still been £5bn left over.  

That would be more than enough for universal free school meals, plus far more MRI and CAT scans in the NHS and thousands of Sure Start places. Even with relatively small amounts of money, significant reforms can be funded. Yet the government chose bankers over cancer sufferers, toddlers and their carers, or school students going hungry.  

The government, and anyone standing up for these austerity policies, seems to have lost sight of ordinary people altogether. Because there is a real human cost to all of these policies.  

In my constituency in Hackney, it has been spelt out by the Citizens’ Advice Bureau. They report that issues relating to welfare benefits are up 72 per cent from September-October last year, with the most common issue being on Personal Independence Payments.  

Debt issues are rising generally, with rent arrears cases up 60 per cent, and the housing crisis continues to deepen, with overall complaints up 17 per cent from a year ago. Contrary to ministers’ claims about the superiority of the private sector, complaints from this category have risen by 35 per cent.  

These terrible stories will be reproduced across large parts of the country.  

When politicians say “there’s no money left” or talk about “tough choices,” they are implicitly saying that these priorities, to bail out banks while ordinary people are desperately struggling to make ends meet, are ones they share.  

Otherwise it would simply be the case that the response would be, “Yes, there’s loads of money left, but you have just given it to the bankers.”  

All of the “tough choices” become redundant if this money alone is redirected towards removing austerity policies. No wonder these measures supporting bank profits have received so little attention.

But it is insufficient to end there. Yes, new austerity measures can be avoided. But the NHS was already in crisis, pay was too low — especially across the public sector — and our public services, in general, are in dire need of repair.  

For that, we have to find additional funds. Oddly, Jeremy Hunt showed the way.  

He said he was able to raise £14bn simply from raising the windfall tax profits on the energy companies alone to 45 per cent. But, as these are windfall profits, not their average profits, and investment in the sector is in any event subsidised for tax purposes, there is every reason to move to 100 per cent taxes.  

There is no reason to confine this to energy companies alone. There is growing evidence that banks, large retailers and food companies have all used the smokescreen about the cost of living to make excess profits through price gouging.  

With those funds and others, such as from non-dom tax avoiders and wealth taxes, there would be ample funds to raise pay in line with inflation, repair our public services, and invest in the jobs of the future, especially in renewable energy and greening the economy.  

Yet this is where the structure of the Autumn Statement’s austerity matters. It could dominate the political agenda even beyond the next two years if the Labour leadership does not adopt a radically different approach.  

This is the political elephant trap the Tories have set.  They will dare Labour to copy their promised austerity measures that are scheduled post-election, which would only weaken Labour’s support and narrow the gap between the two parties.  

But if Labour refuses to go along with austerity, the Tories will scream that Labour will put up taxes on low and middle-income earners. This is just another form of vote-losing austerity.  

Instead, Labour should be bold and reject austerity in both its guises. It should say no cuts, no tax increases, investment in our economy and society — and all this to be paid for by those who have your money: the banks, the profiteers, the landlords.  

This is a strategy to win an election and to govern successfully — by doing what is right for the overwhelming majority of people.

Diane Abbott is MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.