See no fairness, hear no fairness, speak no fairness

As much as the ConDems may want to push economic growth up the agenda, accusations of unfairness over their recent spending review continue to follow them around like a bad smell.

Cameron, Clegg and Osborne have since modified their earlier attempts to kick shit out of the Institute of Fiscal Studies who have been consistently critical of the regressive effects of benefits changes upon the economy. The trio now simply say that they "fundamentally disagree” with the public policy think-tank.

Unsurprisingly, the IFS holds a very similar stance but is winning hands-down in the credibility stakes; mostly because "highly respected" and "objective” are not attributes one readily ascribes to political parties – especially political parties in government.

The Conservative manifesto was peppered with references to “fairness”; the Lib Dem document even had the word in the title, and yet the polls show that people think both parties have decided to abandon the notion for the duration and possibly beyond. Their scepticism is probably fuelled by a disjointed feel to the grand plan as bad news announcements made in almost off-hand fashion from various platforms seem to be greeted by dismissive noises from IDS as much as IFS.

The same research findings indicate how very few voters think benefit changes are sensibly targeted, long-term in nature and in the overall public interest, and evidence appears to be mounting daily to back up this perception. The charity Gingerbread says unemployed single parents are being "set up to fail" by moves compelling them to seek work when their youngest child turns seven. Academics are adding their contention that the treasury deficit does not justify the scale of the proposed spending cuts and that benefits regime changes are ideologically and not economically driven.

No-one seems able to say if the talk by Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes about  a parliamentary party rebellion against housing benefit cuts is prompted by sincere disillusionment or a sense of self-preservation by an MP representing a London borough. A similar sense of confusion presides over cabinet backtracking out of the Browne stuff as Clegg touts the idea that tuitions fees might be capped after all.

What we must deduce for the moment at least is that “fairness” is a variable notion for ConDems in Westminster rather than a disposable one. Hence the news that universal benefits (i.e. pensions) have suddenly become affordable again.