visory body, the Commission on Social Justice, caves in to the Tories on every issue that counts.
Its recommendations mean more means-testing, less benefits for workers and the unemployed, cuts in pensions and cuts in student grants.
While Tory ministers are living it up in Paris hotels and bosses are getting million pound pay offs, the Labour Party's advisors are lecturing us on "responsible" wage rises and the need to decrease welfare expenditure.
This is a report that concedes all the ground we fought Thatcher for in the eighties.
Affordable
Most importantly it ties levels of welfare to what the bosses deem "affordable". When this is combined with more means testing it has an unavoidable result - the burden of the capitalist crisis is for the working class to carry.
It makes no challenge to the basic inequalities of class society and accepts that the market is the ultimate arbiter of what is affordable. This makes cuts inevitable.
Someone is going to have to pay for the crisis — and its going to be us.
When John Smith launched this commission he said it Frank Field opens gate as Labour stampedes to market would "think the unthinkable". The problem is that the Tories have been thinking the content of this report for two decades. No wonder the bosses' Institute of Directors has welcomed it.
Far from being a "New Beveridge" this is a tame justification for all the shifts in welfare that the Tories have sought to implement.
This is particularly true when it comes to tax on benefit. It is proposed now only for the "better off". But by advocating it the authors make possible a massive extension at a later date.
Costs
This must be what they have in mind for, as the Child Poverty Action Group point out, the present administration costs make it barely worthwhile.
The Tory attacks have proved beyond doubt that "targeting" means cuts.
The Tories have struggled long and hard to stop people lary, accepts the strategy, and accepts the result.
This is why the commission is a step backwards from Beveridge. It surrenders the most significant things he fought for, not least of all a collective responsibility to the elderly.
Pensions
It backs breaking the link between pensions and earnings. Workers are to be asked to pay higher contributions to pay for an increase. It says nothing about ending VAT on fuel and even proposes to extend the retirement age of women to 65.
The private sector will become more involved, and the basic pension will be steadily devalued in favour of means testing. In other words, we've got to look after ourselves.
So much for social responsibility.
Instead of appealing to deep feelings of concern and generosity to the old the commission advocates individual insurance to pay for care. As Jack Jones the campaigner for pensioners said "millions of pensioners were looking to the report. There will be disappointment."
Pipe Dreams Although there are a great number of fine phrases about Fortunately nurses have been more willing than Labour to defend NHS the "aim" of full employment, "redistributing joblessness" and making nursery provision a "high priority" this is all to be permitted only in the context of creating and developing a "dynamic market economy".
As the market shows less and less ability to provide for even the most basic of needs there is little chance of any of these wishes coming true. Without an economic alternative they become mere pipe dreams.
If you look at the authors this is no surprise.
It's the product of bosses Sir Gordon Borrie and Christopher Haskins, SDP splitter Bernard Williams and the Liberal Democrat Steven Webb. Why should the Labour Party get these people to make its policy?
Intimidation
There is no mention of bringing back into public ownership the privatised industries, repealing anti-union laws or cutting military expenditure.
There are no proposals for job creation.
Instead the report supports wage cuts to pay for the crisis: "unemployment and inflation can be kept down only if the average increase in earnings is no higher than the average increase in productivity": in other words, work harder for less money.
While doing no more than "considering" a wealth tax it explicitly advocates making social security harder to claim. This is Portillo-style intimidation frighten claimants off to save money.
It airs the figure of £3.50 for a minimum wage — significantly less than Labour's present f4.10. But simultaneously it warns "clearly a minimum wage which is set too high will produce job losses": another concession to the Tories.
As well as laying the basis for further inroads into welfare provision it backs a graduate tax and the ending of grants in favour of loans.
When average student overdrafts are hitting a record £2,500 Borrie declares that "the burden of expansion in higher education will have to be borne by... full time university students living away from home".