Multimillionaire Tory Cabinet members are up in arms over the decisions made by modestly paid teachers and civil servants to stand up in defence of their pensions.
Privately educated Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude, whose personal wealth is estimated at around £3 million, alleged that no-one in the private sector has access to pensions such as those enjoyed by civil servants.
Civil Service pensions and those of teachers don't drop in their recipients' laps as manna from heaven.
They are paid for both by personal contributions and as a long-term trade-off that offers a reasonable pension as compensation for salaries that do not match the best in the private sector.
Maude must be aware that there are a select few in the private sector who receive pensions pay-offs that dwarf those of even the best-paid teachers and civil servants.
These people form the same elite that pays its in crowd mind-boggling salaries and bonuses while lecturing the rest of us on tightening our belts for the common good.
The Cabinet Office Minister might also compare MPs' pension schemes with those of public-service workers to see which offer the best returns.
He might also like to consider fringe benefits open to MPs while in opposition, such as his own penchant for collecting highly lucrative directorships for little effort.
And there's his ability to claim £35,000 in public support for a mortgage on a new flat just a few minutes walk from his existing home, which he then proceeded to rent out. Read more here
During his attack on teachers and civil servants, Maude claimed that, if the coalition of multimillionaires "hadn't inherited the biggest budget deficit in the developed world, we might not have to be taking these steps."
No-one ought to fall for such a brazen lie. The Tories and their Liberal Democrat partners in crime can't help themselves. It's their default position.
Big business and the wealthy don't depend on the essential services that public-sector workers provide. They demand cuts because they see spending on welfare and public services as money that could have been used as tax cuts for themselves.
If anyone were in any doubt on this point, David Cameron, who was born into opulence and married into even greater riches, explained his government's determination to cap annual benefits, irrespective of need.
"It cannot be right for some families to get over £26,000 a year in benefits. That is paid for by people working hard and paying their taxes," he declared.
What he meant is that benefits are paid for by some people working hard and paying their taxes, because other people and many profitable businesses escape paying their share through legal but unjustifiable tax-avoidance schemes.
The Labour opposition's job is complicated by the fact that the Blair-Brown governments defended the tax-avoidance havens and low rates of direct taxation on the super-rich in Britain.
The curse of new Labour is also exemplified by Cameron's ability to cite Tony Blair's reference to public spending being out of control and John Hutton's willingness to do the Tories' dirty work on public-service pensions.
Fortunately, public-service trade unions have consistently criticised attacks on their members by governments of whatever label.
June 30 promises to be a magnificent day of resistance, which should be the first engagement in a campaign to defeat the anti-worker policies of this illegitimate coalition.
