THE policies of Rishi Sunak will not offer a way out of the crisis. They will not be very different from those of Liz Truss, except in one important area. They will also make the current crisis substantially worse.   

It is imperative that the labour movement as a whole develops not just a thorough critique of “Sunakism,” which is an important starting point. It must also seek fundamental change in order to reverse this crisis.   

The appointment of Sunak’s Cabinet tells us precisely where he stands on social questions. The government as a whole is going to press ahead with legislation curbing trade union rights. With barely a murmur it has already pushed through the draconian public order Act.   

Therese Coffey as environment secretary blows out of the water any claims the Sunak has any “green credentials.” The Health Services Journal says that Steve Barclay is the NHS’s worst nightmare. And the appointment of Suella Braverman is an insult to refugees, international law and to basic human decency.   

The campaign in the liberal press to paint Sunak as a big change from his two predecessors is already a hard sell. But it is going to be next to impossible after the fiscal statement on November 17. It is widely expected that there will ferocious cuts to public spending and/or tax increases.   

It is asserted there is now a £40 billion hole in government finances. Yet commentators cannot know now what the growth forecast will be from the Office for Budget Responsibility and therefore what the main determinant of the size of the deficit will be. Lower growth forecasts will mean a wider deficit is also expected.   

We should be wary of any sleight of hand in presenting the forecasts for government spending, as Sunak has form on this. He did this in his first austerity Budget in March when he was chancellor. The effect was to distort what were big cuts in government spending, making them seem as if there was growth.   

He also cut public-sector investment in March very sharply in real terms. This is one of the most damaging ways any chancellor can make savings as it simply reinforces the long-term decline in the economy.   

Related issues, like “levelling-up,” addressing the housing crisis or the desperate need to invest in renewable energy, home insulation and cheap, electric public transport will also be ditched as a result.   

These issues aside, the prime candidates for cuts are benefits and pensions, as well as public-sector jobs, pay and pensions. A number of reports suggest that for some time Cabinet members were pressing for tens of thousands of public-sector jobs to be axed. This is in a country where basic functions like getting a driver’s test or licence, or a passport in a timely fashion is already impossible for many.   

Yet the propaganda juggernaut propelling Sunak forward is moving ahead at pace. This is because of two factors. First, the Tory Party is in crisis, still in hock to the reactionary ideologues of the European Research Group and slumping in the polls. Second, Sunak has reassured the Tory paymasters in the City and the boardrooms that his plans will cause no more financial crises.   

The brief interlude under Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng is highly instructive. What they failed to understand is that you can easily disregard the speculators in the currency and bond markets, but not when you are dependent on them to fund huge deficits, both in public spending and in terms of overseas trade and capital flows.

They simply did not believe the government could push through the planned scale of cuts. Sunak agrees with his predecessor’s aims, but is forced to take a more cautious approach.   

Sunak has given a reassurance to the financial markets that he will proceed more cautiously, but still that workers and the poor must be made to pay for the crisis. And there is plenty of authoritarian legislation to use against them if they resist.   

So how bad will it be? Outside of a war which directly impacts the people of this country, the situation could hardly be worse. Recent data from the Office for National Statistics shows that in eight out of the 14 years since 2009, real wages have actually fallen. This is unprecedented in the modern era — and next year will almost certainly join that list.   

As the growing strike wave shows, that is simply unacceptable to millions of workers. Attacks on pensioners or the poor will only widen public support for the strikes, and public-sector workers are likely to be increasingly militant too.   

It should be clear that a response of tinkering at the edges will not work. A real alternative must be bold and radical. This must not be, as David Blunkett and Peter Mandelson now suggest, a “radicalism” that robs middle-income earners via higher taxes to soften the blows for some of the poor, combined with flag-waving and dog-whistle politics.   

It must be a radical programme that benefits the overwhelming majority at the expense of the tiny minority. The effects of government policy, including higher mortgage rates, mean that the fundamental division in society between the 1 per cent and the 99 per cent is more relevant now than ever.   

If Labour is to offer an alternative that makes a real difference, it will be asked where the money is coming from. We must be able to show the population how radical policies can be funded.   

The first task and the basis for radical transformation must come from understanding that “there is no money left” is one of the great myths of the last period.   

In reality, despite Tory austerity, the economy has registered some — very meagre — net growth since the recession of the global financial crisis began early in 2008. Yet, of that very small growth, far too great a proportion has gone to company profits. The current surge in inflation means that it is only getting worse.   

Radical policies can be fully funded. We must be willing to follow the money to reverse the entire austerity policy, which continues to rob workers and the poor to give to big business and the rich.   

We could begin to repair public services in the first Budget as well as improving the position of households, redistributing to them. And to make this sustainable, we should raise the level of public investment to sustainably boost growth.   

There is money left. It is just in the wrong hands. Rather than ending up with shareholders in offshore accounts, we could start to tackle the crisis in the NHS and other public services, put money back in people’s pockets and boost growth through investment.

Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.