Newsletter
Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Poll
Jobs
Policy | Charity & Fundraising | Research | Education | Executive | Media | Social Care | Communications
User login
RSSHow cuts will hit the poorest hardest
New research shows how the poorest areas of the country will suffer the greatest loss of income.
By George Eaton Published 21 June 2010 11:10
In recent weeks Nick Clegg has attempted to reassure voters about the coming cuts by promising to deliver what he describes as "progressive austerity" and to prevent the emergence of a new north-south divide.
But new research by the Financial Times shows just how unrealistic and disingenuous this promise is. The analysis looked at how different regions of the country would be affected if social security benefits were reduced by 10 per cent and if public-sector areas, excluding health, were cut by 20 per cent.
It found that the poorest areas would be disproportionately hit on both measures. For instance, benefit cuts would make household income in west Wales and the Welsh valleys fall by 3.6 per cent, compared to a drop of less than 0.5 per cent in inner London. Areas such as Northern Ireland, the north of England and the south-west would suffer the greatest fall in income, while regions such as the Home Counties and London would suffer the least.
Given that public spending follows need, it is the poorest areas of the country which are most reliant on the state. It therefore follows that across-the-board spending cuts will hit them hardest. The Tory minister who, in a rare moment of honesty from this government, recently admitted that "those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt" was spot on.
The danger to the poor is magnified by the coalition's decision to rely on spending cuts, rather than tax rises, to plug the deficit. The government's deficit reduction plan envisages a 4:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises, rather than the 2:1 split favoured by Labour. By comparison, during the last big fiscal tightening undertaken by a Conservative government, Ken Clarke split the pain 50:50 between tax rises and spending cuts.
Targeted tax increases on middle- and high-income earners offer a progressive alternative to spending cuts of a size not seen in the postwar era. But those hoping that Clegg will make this argument around the cabinet table will be disappointed. In an interview with the Spectator before the election, he pledged to reduce the deficit through cuts alone, a position that put him to the right of David Cameron.
So it's not that Clegg has been "turned" by the Tories -- he was never a progressive to begin with.
Tags: Spending Cuts Budget 2010 Public spending George Osborne
Related articles
George Eaton is editor of The Staggers blog
Latest Posts by our Bloggers
From the magazine
-
Samira Shackle -
Ryan Gilbey -
Rebecca Stott -
Will Self -
Jason Cowley -
Sophie Elmhirst -
Martha Gill -
Rafael Behr -
George Eaton -
Rafael Behr
Elsewhere on the Blogosphere
- ConservativeHome
Could George Osborne's leadership ambitions deliver a referendum on the EU? - Political Scrapbook
Latest data shows recession worsen after Tory HQ attempt to spin figures - Coffee House
The coalition: two years in - Left Foot Forward
Spending watchdog slams Regional Growth Fund waste - James Kirkup
LOL: David Cameron's love-texts to Rebekah Brooks could mean voters laugh out loud – at his expense
Blogroll
- Alastair Campbell
- Benedict Brogan
- Coffee House
- Comment Central
- Conservative Home
- Dave's Part
- Gary Gibbon
- Guardian Politics
- Hopi Sen
- Iain Dale
- Labour List
- Labour Uncut
- Left Foot Forward
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Liberal Democrat Voice
- Luke Akehurst
- Neil Clark
- Next Left
- Our Kingdom
- Paul Waugh
- Penny Red
- Pickled Politics
- Political Betting
- Political Scrapbook
- Simon Fletcher
- The Bleeding Heart Show
- Think Politics
- UK Polling Report
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists
21 comments
I'm sorry, Robert, do you EVER intend to be taken as making a serious point if you feel you can communicate any part of it by calling Labour 'Liebour'? Grow up.
re: Mathias.
Labour = Liebour... for too many reasons to go into here. But, just for starters...
Most Liebour politicians (MP's and MEP's particularly, plus a good many councillors) are middle class, well to do, small 'c' conservatives. They are not stupid ! but, alas, their electorate are !
There has long been a gulf between the electorate and the elected. But, that gulf be widest between the 'Labour' electorate and their Liebour elected... Underclass / working class (losers !) electorate and middle class / educated elected.
As for the Tories and LibDems ?... they make no secret of their middle class pretensions (upper middle in the case of the elected !), therefore, though there be a gulf it be much less so than in the former case.
Either way, whatever we are, we are stuffed !
Do you really believe these cuts will lead to growth anywhere? It may hid non Tory areas hardest but those maps look like fantasy to me.
ROBERT TAGGART, who even writes his own name in an aggressive CAPS LOCK way, posts comments on NS online articles all the time and quite frankly, has never posted anything worthy of reading let alone make a serious point worthy of further debate. The man is clearly what is know on internet messages boards as a TROLL and just enjoys looking to get a rise out of people.
As such, why don't we get it out of our collective system, give the guy what he deserves below and then just begin to ignore him, what do you think?
Personally, I think ROBERT TAGGART is really Sarah Palin in disguise and I claim my £5!
There seems to be very little talk by the Conservatives/Libs about how their proposed changes (and obvious growth because of in their eyes) will effect the debt. A growing economy which outstrips the interest on the debt would make the impact of the actual money owed less in real term replayments, as well as the fact that the publicly owned shares in the banks that were actually bailed out can be sold at maturity...
ROBERT, the happy thing is that I haven't read any of your posts. On a serious point, it begins to see how little you can trust from Clegg. He has virtually cheated his way into this job, on a false premise. A nice little earner for him, but there is a real fear for people likely to suffer the expected cuts.
re: Graeme. Here, here, here ! For that one will share that fiver 'JS' owes us !
Oh, for the record... the 'caps lock' be not or our making, well, not for several months now anyway (new specs + larger screen). Methinks there be a 'glitch' in NS system.
Nothing infuriates me more than ******s that go around using terms like 'Bliar' Nu Labour' or 'Liebour'.
Pure infantile puerile schoolboy behaviour. Grow out of it.
I've posted before that you can't blame the Lib Dems for takin advantage of this siuation. Thats what they are in politics for, to go into a coalition govt. Every voter knows that, otherwise, what is the point of voting Lib Dems? Its a wasted vote. They've been trying to get into Govt at every General Election. Its something all voters will have to face up to. So don't begrudge them of taking this opportunity when it came.
Well put swatantra nandanwar. Its no different from the name calling and bullying DC employed when on the opposition. I can think of a number of childish anti-tory slurs but they are not worth writing.
As for the cuts. Of course they are going to hit the poor hardest. This 'new' government are nothing more than thatchers step children and are hell bent on making the poor pay for the mistakes their wunch of bankers caused.
Robert,
First of all, as a private school educated girl training to be a barrister who voted for Labour (loving the 'Liebour' - shows you are a cut above the 'dim-wits', you clever little man you!), I refute your claim that Labour voters are stupid. If anything, I think the manner in which you've portrayed your point indicates that the only person here that should be wearing the dunces hat is you.
The country was promised cuts, they voted and that is what they are going to get. Whether Lib Dem supporters wanted this is a different point, one for them to air in the next election.
In the here and now, these are the cuts we've got. The question should be, are they going to serve the country well or not? It's not an invitation to moan about Labour.
You seem to be behind, let me catch you up. We had an election! Cameron and Clegg are now spooning partners. Cuts to ensue. The end.
J B well said.
I am part of those who GENUINELY cannot work (Muscular Dystrophy) and am MORE than a tad worried and angry about this! Surely these cuts will only INCREASE the deficit as opposed to DEcrease it?! I mean think about it. . . Less income = less spending. AND . . . Would it not result also in a soaring crime rate, more jobless and businesses going bust??!
Good that you think all Labour voters are drunkards, morons and northerners, Robert.
re: J B. On the basis of your 'evidence'... YOU should know better !
re: Scunny. Not only Northerners !
re: Simon Maders. Agreed... as a 'scrounger' oneself !
Robert Taggart, your views are simply absurd. One of the great things we have in this country is our welfare system. It is there for people in genuine need, the sick, the disabled, the vulnerable, those with child care responsibilities, our pensioners and those who are out of work through no fault of their own.
You clearly know nothing of the hard work Labour has carried out on weeding out those who abuse the system; read the most recent welfare reform act and you will be referring to fact rather than fiction.
None of us know when we may need to be reliant on State support; don't be so cocky to think it may never be you in need of a 'handout' one day. It only takes a few minutes to have something like a catastrophic car accident, it's things like that which change peoples lives forever.
The Labour voters are far from stupid, whereas your average Tory seems to believe all they read in the gutter press;as if they don't have a mind of their own. And as for the Liberals.....they don't quite know what to believe.
Clegg has turned all the Liberals stood for on its head to get a personal moment of triumph.
I for one would have been happy to pay a little more of my hard earned tax on preserving a welfare system we should be proud of.
Don't kid yourself that there will be any scenario where the poor and middle income families will be better of under Clegg and Cameron for you won't be. And if you are well off enough to be unaffected, dig deep into your pockets my friend and give a little more to a society that should share. You know like Cameron said; 'we're all in this together?'
Nick well said that man-slight gripe you did not mention Carers who save the Country billions of pounds a year.My view of the necessity and importance of the Welfare State -has not changed -whether I have been in"paid employment" or not.As far as Labour voters being stupid goes being one I am bound to protest but I am educated in degree terms-(wore I didn't vote for Thatcher badge I was only 17!)So I am an educated "scrounger" who owns his own home. I have always voted Labour sometimes through gritted teeth whatever my personal circumstances were.
Sorry for that omission Hindle, as someone in full time work, I should have mentioned that I myself spend a fair amount of time looking after my 83 year old father, so perhaps it's just a question of taking it for granted that my unpaid and unrewarded (save for a satisfaction one gets from looking out for ones own family)caring duties were omitted, like many say the unnoticed carers of the day. No financial reward for many who similarly help their ageing relatives.
I now nervously await the outcome of Osborne's disastrous budget. I'm sure that by the end of the day at least the sales of spirits will all have gone up, for many of us will have turned to drink!
This wretched budget is far more to do with preserving the long term wealth of the fat cats than it is for the benefit of us all.
re: Nick. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear ! ... you must be a victim of the last thirteen years of Liebour spin !
We are all having to pay for those thirteen wasted years.
For the record... as a 'scrounger' for twenty-seven years (!) one knows all about the attempts by governments to 'weed out' the likes of moi ! Unless we have a government which simply abolishes all benefits the likes of moi will always be around to take advantage !
Loving it !
Shame on you Taggart. You ought to be chained to a ball and made to split rocks with your teeth!
Were it not for those 'poor' sods we would never have to suffer a Liebour government.
It be only their ignorance and vast numbers that guarantee Liebour their bedrock vote. Liebour will never 'sort them out' (improve the education system for starters) as any even half-wit will be less likely to vote for them. Liebour needs these dim-wits (losers) like a drunk needs a drink.
So ? So methinks these losers should pay for the cost of thirteen wasted years of hard Liebour !
Post new comment