The true 'fairness' of the Co-alition's cuts.

A North-South divide exists in Britain today as it always has done. Many would argue that since the days of Thatcher, the gap has narrowed somewhat in terms of investment and improving infrastructure in Northern cities. I never expected much from the current occupants of Downing Street, but even I failed to predict just how blatent the government would be with its policy of biased cuts. In reality, the Conservatives are punishing the Labour heartlands in the best way they know how - by cutting off the funding to some of the poorest people in the entire country and squeezing the Red Councils until the pip squeaks. What better way to let the North know that the Tories are well and truly back in power.

Below is a list of the 20 lowest hit area's in the Governments latest round of cutbacks:


20 Least affected councils
Thurrock 10.1
Derbyshire 10
Richmond upon Thames 9.9
Worcestershire 9.9
Somerset 9.6
Devon 9.5
Staffordshire 9.4
Kent 9.4
Wokingham 9.3
Hampshire 8.8
East Sussex 8.6
Warwickshire 8.2
Cumbria 8.1
Essex 8
Buckinghamshire 8
West Sussex 7.8
Norfolk 7.4
Surrey 6.3
Dorset 4
Isles of Scilly 0.6

As you can see, the vast majority of the 20 least affected are affluent Southern shires. "Fairness!" comes the cry from Cameron,"we're all in this together". How can it possibly be construed fair to barely touch the budgets of some of the UK's richest areas whilst simultaniously dessimating those communities which rely most on their local government in everyday life? It is absolute nonsense to indicate that a cut of 20% won't necessarily lead to a loss of front line services. Common sense would indicate otherwise, and with tens of thousands of people being made redundant in the public sector as a direct consequence of these savage cut backs, how can Osbourne say with a straight face that the overarching reasons behind these cuts aren't politically motivated? How many people are losing their jobs in his own constituency I wonder? Well I can tell you that it's less than 1.

Below is a list of constituencies that were affected the most during the recent cut backs:


20 worst affected councils
Hartlepool 23.1
Liverpool 22.4
North East Lincolnshire 21.7
St Helens 21.7
South Tyneside 21.5
Blackburn with Darwen 21.3
Manchester 21
Doncaster 20.8
Knowsley 20.8
Redcar and Cleveland 20.6
Rochdale 20.5
Hackney 20.3
Stockton-on-Tees 20.2
Newham 20
Wirral 19.8
Tower Hamlets 19.7
Salford 19.6
Kingston upon Hull 19.6
Sheffield 19.6
Sunderland 19.5

The above figures highlight just how politically motivated these cuts are. Almost all of the top 20 are Labour seats, and 9 out of the 10 councils which make up the Greater Manchester authority have been forced to make cuts well above average. Strangely only Trafford Council, the single Conservative borough in Greater Manchester has been asked to make cuts below the national average. I shall leave you to make your own minds up about the reasons behind that decision.

I am not a naive man, cuts need to be made - that much is clear. However the scale and speed of these draconian policies hark back to the days of Thatcher herself! The North stews in a quagmire of fear, while middle England remain blissfully untouched. Certain members of the Tory front bench can't believe their luck. The economic climate left after the Global banking crisis means that never before have The Right had such a compelling excuse. "Look at what we inherited, the debt is far too high. Sadly we're going to have to make cuts but it's all Labours fault". Why dress it up? For a party who believes in small government, this is surely a perfect climate. Just cut whatever you want to and when the complaints inevitably come rolling in just point your finger squarely at the previous administration.

Right wingers like Eric Pickles, the human embodiment (both politically and physically) of a well-off fat cat, has been dreaming of this situation for years. Mr Pickles recently said: "By adopting an intelligent and fair approach to the way funding is allocated we have been able to ensure those parts of the country that are most reliant on central funding continue to get the lion's share of the taxpayers' money that is available. Funding fairness underpins this settlement.” He may need to check the definition of "fair" in the dictionary.

Now is the time when people need to voice their opinions and let those in power know that gambling with people's futures is unfair, unjust and ultimately unforgivable. Why should someone living on a Northern council estate be denied opportunities which those in Blue heartlands will have thrust upon them as a birth right? To put a new spin on an old Nye Bevin Quote "No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a child is denied basic opportunities because of a lack of means". I do not mean idly supporting people on benefits and those who scrounge their way through life, but I truly believe that every child should have access to a local well stocked library. That every person should have a leisure centre within their community and that the small issues which mean so much to so many should be dealt with quickly and efficiently by the very people we elect to help us in our hours of need. Don't let these things be taken away without a fight. If we stand together we can make a difference.

The Student Protest (1)

So David Cameron and his cronies have concluded that £9000 a year is the value of a degree in this country. This is despite the fact that even with a first class degree, there are no jobs available and no guarantee of employment for years to come.

In my opinion, it's unreasonable to enact a policy of cuts and underfunding making hundreds of thousands of people unemployed while simultaneously claiming that a degree is worth the extra cost because it makes you more employable. You can be as employable as you want but no vacancies means no money.

Tony Benn who once stated:

"The idea you tax people because you're educated is ludicrous. You tax people because you are rich. You see students give up three years of work, although they might be earning money on unskilled wages, and then they end up with a debt of £12,000 under the present system. Then they marry another student like I did so it's £25,000. Then you try and get a mortgage. So you start life with a debt of 70,000 quid, and every employer would love to employ someone with a debt of 70,000 quid because they won't cause them any trouble."

How true is that statement? Bear in mind that this quote was made before the Tories moved to the proposed system which would see the personal debt of each indiviual sky rocket to around £27,000 each! The actual scale of debt is mind-boggling, and yet we're supposed to accept this without any form of backlash because it's "fair". Fair for who is my question. Not one single member of the coalition's front bench has paid a penny for their university education. However I'm expected to pay £27,000 in the interests of fairness despite not having a wealthy family or any real prospects of walking into a lucrative position immediately after university.

There are many people who now believe the student protests which are taking place up and down the country should stop as the issue is unresolvable. I would ask people to look back at history. What position would the women of this country be in if Emmeline Pankhurst had given up once the government of the day had made it clear that women would not be given suffrage? Could Barrack Obama ever have become president if Martin Luther King Jr had given up in the face of so much fury in the 1960's? My point is that the only way that governments can ever be held to account is if you fight and fight again until your point is heard. The vast majority of people in this country don't agree with the plans of the coalition to fleece the youth of our society, and the government need to take account of that fact.



Nick Clegg once promised every student in Britain that a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote against increased tuition fees. Yet now, for the promise of a ministerial car, he has sold out his own beliefs and the beliefs of all of his supporters. Don't believe me? Take a look yourself: in the latest YouGov poll, published on the 27th of January 2011, the Liberal Democrats scored a 12% approval rating - their lowest in over 40 years. Nick clegg's seat itself in the Sheffield Hallam constituancy has a huge student population. This is where we should be hitting them hard. Protests shouldn't be taking place in city centres, but outside MP's offices. Imagine the message it would send if every single day, Clegg and the other people who have betrayed their pledges (Vince Cable in particular) were disrupted in their way to work and on their way to Westminster. In my opinion, this is the way forward. Let's evolve these protests into a meaningful effort. This would also eradicate the "anarchist idiot" element from the groups, and in doing so get rid of the perception that we are just there to cause trouble. Come on people - let's keep the pressure on. You know that these increases are unfair. Now is the time to make your voices heard.