George Osborne’s budget last week adds up to an appalling attack on family budgets – and those who will feel the greatest pain will be the poorest and the out-of-work. Benefits reductions coupled with an increase in VAT puts the budgets of lower-income households under severe pressure at a time when jobs are hard to come by and their sustainability far from guaranteed. Even the increase in child tax credit merely compensates for the pain that’s felt elsewhere. Overall, this is a cruel, mean-minded budget for families, and one that totally fails the government’s fairness test.

To make matters worse, freezing child benefit, undermining the longterm value of safety net benefits by linking them in future to the generally lower consumer price index , removing tax credits from middle income households, re-testing claimants for disability benefits, and capping housing benefit and help with mortgage interest are only the first steps. Already the Chancellor has told us that other public expenditure can be protected only if further savings are made out of the benefits bill – clearly a softening up for more freezes and cuts. And while Iain Duncan Smith’s determination to see more claimants come off benefits and into jobs, and to make work pay, is of course incontestable in theory – indeed that was exactly the thrust of Labour’s recent welfare reforms – here too the signs are already obvious that he intends to achieve that through meaner benefits and tougher conditions rather than improving prospects at work.

Linking benefits to CPI, removing child tax credits from more and more families and freezing child benefit are highly damaging steps. Adequate out of work benefits are essential to enable families to make ends meet when jobs are lost, and to fulfil their financial commitments, avoiding the spiralling debt which in turn acts as a barrier to making work pay. But the government’s new measures will reduce the value of these benefits over time.

Freezing universal child benefit will make matters even worse. The value of this reliable, universal benefit, particularly at a time when parents are worried about job security, cannot be overstated. Freezing it now reduces the protection and stability it provides for families in uncertain times.

The decision not to progress with further rollout of the free school meals pilots puts more family budgets under pressure as parents move into work. Many parents taking up low-paid work express shock at the impact that the loss of free school meals has on disposable income. How can the government claim it wants to incentivise work, then take away this support?

The sick and disabled – a group already at greater risk of poverty – are set to suffer too. Testing more disabled claimants for Employment and Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance will likely reduce the incomes of many disabled people, and create uncertainty and anxiety for very many more.

The cap on housing benefit announced in the budget will cause considerable hardship. Overcrowding is one of the top issues I meet in my Manchester constituency surgeries – reducing the amount families can spend on rent will exacerbate the problems overcrowded households already face. MPs across the country tell the same story: one inner London MP calculates that 84% of private tenants in her constituency pay rent above the new cap for benefit. It’s no good the government complaining about a lack of social housing, then reducing financial support for those in rented accommodation and removing housebuilding targets from local authorities. These policies will drive more families into substandard accommodation, while the restriction on help with mortgage interest increases the risk of repossessions and homelessness among homeowners too.

If all that wasn’t bad enough, it’s not just the cuts to the benefits bill that put the poorest under fire. The rise in VAT will hurt the poorest too. It’s no use ministers arguing that VAT is a progressive tax as a proportion of expenditure, or that the zero rating of some basic items means the poorest suffer less. VAT is not some sort of luxury tax – it attaches to household basics, and the disposable incomes of poorer families will be very severely stretched.

And finally we hear from the Work and Pensions Secretary that people should move around the country to take up work – the 21st century reprise of Norman Tebbit’s “on yer bike” . That would impose a further set of expectations on the poorest that would be unrealistic, unfair and cruel. Jobseekers are already required to travel reasonable distances to take up work. If Iain Duncan Smith intends to go further, the informal support networks that many rely on, family relationships, stability for children, and stronger communities will all be put at risk. No middle class parent would move around the country for work without considering the impact on their child’s’ schooling, no middle aged child of an elderly parent who relies on her daughter to pop in to do a bit of shopping and check she’s doing ok would dream of moving away and leaving her mum without access to support. Yet that’s precisely what could be expected of the poorest if these proposals go ahead.

All this makes clear that the government’s attitude to welfare reform and managing the public finances is that the demands on and expectations of the poorest should be more onerous, the consequences more painful, than for those who have the most. It’s a bad start from a government that proclaimed its budget should be judged on grounds of fairness. It totally fails that test.