
Firstly, the detailed figures in the chancellor’s own chart (B.6 on p.100 of the review) shows that the total package of spending cuts and benefit and tax credit changes are regressive. Although cuts are inevitable, loading more than three-quarters of the burden on to spending cuts and less than a quarter on tax rises was always going to hurt those who rely on public services the most. The unfairness of George Osborne’s proposals is only masked because he has stuck with Labour’s tax rises targeted on the more affluent.
This has been a good spending review for the prosperous pensioner. No-one can have any argument with protecting a good basic state pension, but preserving badly targeted universal benefits like winter fuel allowances, free TV licences and bus passes is hard to justify if tough choices had to be made. The price is paid by young people and working families.
It’s true that at the other end of the age range, there’s some good news for the very young. Extra spending on nursery education for disadvantaged 2 year olds and pupils on free school meals will serve the goals of fairness. Sure Start will see a real term cut, but the Liberal Democrats have seen off the threat to universal nursery education. However, young working people will see cuts in working tax credits and childcare funding. Others will see living standards fall because of rising tuition fees and higher house prices. Rail fares rising three per cent above inflation will also be painful to many commuters.
The north is likely to be particularly hard hit by the spending review because more of its jobs are in the public sector. On top of that, the Department for Communities and Local Government capital budget is being cut by 74 per cent which will drastically slow the regeneration projects which have been so vital for the health of the northern economy. Investment in major northern infrastructure projects such as the Tyne and Wear Metro, the Manchester rail hub and M62 widening are welcome, but they are dwarfed by the cost of London’s Crossrail. A widening of the north-south divide looms.
Finally, the welcome investment in transport and science means that spending on social housing is taking a hammering. This will be disastrous for low-income families and help store up real problems for the future, with lower rates of house building and rising rents. There will be knock-on effects too for house prices, making getting on the housing ladder even more difficult.
How might all this play out politically? General elections are won and lost on living standards. The coalition may well succeed in cutting spending by the next election, so opening up room for tax cuts. But living standards will fall as taxes go up, benefits are cut, fares and charges for services rise, unemployment stays high and – critically – rising inflation starts to push up interest rates and the cost of living. This squeeze on living standards may yet be the key to the result of the next election.
Thank god I’m disabled according to this I’ve got away with it, or is it like always the view of the New labour regime the disabled are a waste of space. Cheap labour to be used in wars get killed or even become disabled , but hell hero’s do not need to eat or live do they.
These have been programmed to become fully effective by 2014/15 in the hope that the economy will be back on track and everybody (or enough people) will feel “comfortable” again and gratefully re-elect a Tory government with the LDs paying the electoral price by being wiped off the political map, including the loss of their Leader’s seat in Sheffield. However, as in the sixties Batman, the worse is yet to come with rising fuel prices, the 1p in the £ increase in NI and VAT and who can plan for, or predict, what Harold Macmillan called “events” such as the Argentinians invading the Falklands or a currency war between the States and China, for example. On the other hand they could, like Heath’s government in the seventies, realised that they have made a huge mistake and start investing in the public sector again. Just a thought: has anybody worked out the costs of reorganising the NHS?