25th February 2009: Article for The Guardian by Jesse Norman

Like other politicians of the late 18th century, James Madison, the father of the US constitution, refused to make specific commitments in seeking election. He believed that manifestos – indeed electoral promises of any kind – were a form of treating: of bribing the electorate to vote for you.

Such high-mindedness was not, it seems, in Tony Blair's mind in framing just five famous promises in the 1997 election. Rather, he sought the political elixir of power without responsibility. No commitments, no accountability, maximal personal power.

When asked how the new government was to be judged on the key issue of equality, Peter Mandelson would only say, in his characteristically grand and self-confident way: "Judge us after 10 years of success in office. For one of the fruits of that success will be that Britain has become a more equal society."

Not sure "success" is the right word, when the economy is fast disappearing down the pan. But otherwise, Dom Pedro, your moment has come. For today the wise boffins of the LSE and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have published Towards a More Equal Society?, a comprehensive analysis of Labour's claims to have produced a more equal society.

The boffins are meticulous, thorough and wide-ranging. Their summary of how Labour has done is a masterpiece of even-handedness. It is a, ah, mixed picture. It all depends on what you look at, and when. They do not say more work is needed, but as a former academic I can assure you it always is.

So let me decode. Beneath its measured exterior the book is a screaming howl of pain at the way this Labour – Labour – government has blown the opportunity of a lifetime to make real inroads into inequality. There have been wins, of course: child and pensioner poverty are down, the poorest children are doing better in school, and there have been gains in tackling deprivation.

But health inequalities have widened. The UK is still bottom of the EU15 countries in child poverty. Recent changes to taxation have been regressive, not progressive. As the Tories have pointed out, there are 900,000 more people in severe poverty than in 1997, while the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor is now at its widest since the Victorian era. And gazillions of pounds have been spent. Moreover, these findings predate the present economic recession, with all its malign expected social effects.

What is so utterly tragic is that after 1997 the conditions for a concerted attack on inequality were just about perfect. The Blair government had political momentum, there was widespread public belief that money should be spent, and the public coffers were filling fast.

Now, as this fascinating book shows, all that is gone. The economy is in disarray, public attitudes towards redistribution are hardening, our rapidly ageing population will lock the door on public spending of anything like the scale seen under Blair and Gordon Brown. It will not recur for a generation. New thinking is called for, on a gigantic scale.