The cuts are reckless and regressive.

Many will be left reeling after the revelations of yesterday’s Spending Review, a long list of savage cuts which threaten 500,000 jobs and the welfare of millions. In announcing this strategy, Chancellor George Osborne claimed to be driven by the demands of fairness; if this is true, it is painfully clear that he has a very distorted concept of what ‘fairness’ entails. Few could describe as fair a budget that impacts disproportionately on the poorest half of the nation, slashing already squeezed social housing provision and reducing care provision whilst allowing the City to emerge unscathed. Even The Telegraph readily admits that this is a political budget, shaped by ideological imperatives as much as economic demands.

Already, the plans have prompted a surge of compelling critiques from think-tanks and charities shocked by their regressive implications. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (hardly a voice of radicalism) has warned that the impact on the poorest tenth will be five times that on the richest, Shelter has expressed fears that homelessness will surge, and the Social Market Foundation has pointed out that protecting the schools budget meant big hits for all-important early years services.

Acknowledging all of this is hugely important, but it is also crucial that we include gender in the picture and recognise the particularly pernicious effects these cuts will have on women. As the Fawcett Society outlines, it is women who will be the main losers as jobs are cut, public services are rolled back and benefits are slashed. Of the 500,000 to be cut from the public sector, two thirds will be women and, as primary carers, it is women who will assume the extra burden of responsibility when provision for children and the elderly is scaled back. We must challenge this: if it goes unrecognised, women’s services and benefits will remain a soft target, vulnerable to a Coalition all-too-often governed by expedience.

2 Comments

Filed under Labour Party

2 responses to “The cuts are reckless and regressive.

  1. Daniel Oxley

    Mary,
    On the disagreeable topic of Conservatives, you might be interested to know about the state of the web site of Sir Robert Atkins MEP. You will recall that when you featured it last November it was being used to promote the career of his wife, Councillor Lady Dulcie Mary Atkins – a dubious use of taxpayer’s money.
    The site no longer has the photo of her outside the town hall with her attendants (?) in municipal regalia and her election results have also disappeared.
    Lady Dulcie does appear now and again on the web site. Her contact details are shown as his PA/Secretary and in his most recent press release (of some seven months ago) she is pictured addressing a meeting with the photo caption, ‘Dulcie on her feet’.
    Regarding the other matter considered earlier – that he charges rent for the office which is in his own home, there is no information.
    Despite the half-hearted attempt to ‘face lift’ his web site much of it is still hopelessly out of date.
    He is running an online survey about Government plans to introduce ID Cards (the results will probably never be published, it looks as though it is there just to make Tory visitors to the site feel that they are having their say). The survey refers to ‘Her Majesty’s Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron’!
    Even on the homepage there is a link called ‘Atkins to Liaise with the Shadow Cabinet’. He is referring, of course, to the previous Tory Shadow Cabinet.
    Do you ever see him around the Euro Parliament? Perhaps you should let him know that his party is no longer the opposition.

  2. I think that for one who says he should learn some elementary economics, his presentation is extremely good.