Don’t be fooled by the Spending Review, as always the devil is in the detail

Despite the cleverly phrased Comprehensive Spending Review, there should be no doubt that this is the beginning of a new and dismal era for Britain. Underpinning the talk of necessity, benefit "scroungers" and new transport infrastructure is a whole litany of changes which will begin the demise of our public services, the growth of unemployment and poverty, further polarisation between the rich and the poor, and the end of the welfare state as we know it.

No, I’m not just trying to be dramatic – this is the reality of what’s happening, as will become clear over the next few months and years. Some of the headlines that Osborne chose to ignore include:

• While pensions may have been indexed to inflation, benefits will be linked to a lower rate of inflation. The consequence is that those struggling to find work will be made poorer. While Osborne may act as if the 5 million on unemployment benefits are “scroungers” the truth is that there are legitimate health problems and a lack of jobs which act as barriers to work. Time limiting those on benefits who live in areas where the vacancy to claimant ratio is already 1:5 is simply not fair.
• The budget for social housing will be slashed by half, so that only 150,000 homes will be built. The 1.8 million households waiting in the queue for social housing are thus unlikely to get a home anytime soon. This announcement comes coupled with caps on housing rents which will lead to the social cleansing of central London, the emergence of ghettos and increased housing insecurity for poor families.
• Legal aid funding will be reduced dramatically, with major implications for divorce and custody cases. In other words, if you’re not the one with the money, you should stick with your husband/ wife, or risk ending up in the queue for social housing. So much for justice.

These cuts and tax changes will result in at least half a million job cuts in the public sector, and an estimated equivalent in the private sector. Our recent report found that the private sector is unlikely to pick up the slack, especially in the areas most in need. This is on top of the 2.45 million already out of work. Thus, the welfare bill is likely to increase and tax-take to decrease substantially – contrary to the aim of cutting the deficit. And, despite the ‘we’re all in it together’ mantra, all the evidence already shows that women, the poor and other vulnerable groups will bare the brunt of the cuts. This, as Kenneth Clarke himself said, is just the beginning. Who knows where it will end.

It’s hard not to get angry. I feel angry. These cuts are the consequence of the financial crisis – reckless bankers caused the deficit, and we pay.

The Coalition government would argue that the cuts are necessary, that we need to get rid of the deficit so the next generation is not saddled with debt, but what about this generation? What about jobs for the almost one million young people who are out of work now? Won’t the next generation be saddled with costs of increased poverty and inequality? And, why is it that we need to move so fast on cutting our deficit when other developed countries are not? The answer is that the depth and speed of planned cuts aren’t necessary, they’re purely ideological. This government is choosing to put jobs and the recovery at risk.

Having just returned from France I have been reminded about how passive we seem to be compared to our European neighbours. Given the major implications of these cuts could we too be incensed to take action? Once the cuts start to bite, people will either suffer in silence or take to the streets. I hope for the latter.