Skip to main content

The injustice of the cuts

By Lucy Hall

Machiavelli once famously said ‘the end justifies the means.’ And it is as relevant now as ever in history, as the suffering of millions of Britons is once again defended in the pursuit of a 'thriving economy'.

The priority right now, should not be cutting the deficit as quickly as possible, but keeping the hurt and damage to human beings at an absolute minimum, even if it does take us twice as long to abolish the deficit and the Bankers can’t get their bonuses. The end achieved through means of large-scale suffering, will be no real end at all
The cuts the coalition will shortly be making are going to hit the poorest the hardest. Those on incapacity benefit will suffer as Osborne slashes at welfare. Many of us are already quivering, waiting for the NHS to dwindle into near non existence as private healthcare is encouraged to dominate, to serve the well-off and to hell with the rest. And as the free market breaks loose into these areas of welfare the inequality gap is only going to rise and make life harder for those at the bottom.

Cameron’s arguments about reducing inefficiency do not touch on the ideological quest he has undertaken; that of reducing the state and letting unregulated capitalism reign. Moreover, his right wing assertion that reducing the deficit, and implementing cuts will be worth it in the end, even if it were true, does little to console those who will suffer as their access to healthcare and education is diminished.

And when eventually the deficit is reduced, and when the economy has restarted, what then? Those who have been demoralized and hurt and brushed aside, what benefit will they have from this 'thriving free-market economy where bankers reign and trade unions protecting the rights of ordinary people have no say?

The message of Cameron, Clegg and Osborne is Machiavelli's: The ends justify the means. 'Just go through this pain, and everything will be better again.' they promise. But there is no use for a dynamic economy if the welfare of ordinary people is not protected. Cuts are necessary to a certain extent, yes. The deficit must eventually be reduced, yes. But as Ed Miliband continually emphasizes in his leadership campaign, the Tories are trying to convince us that the only thing that matters is the deficit, and that is just not right.

The damage Thatcher did to the country still resonates profoundly. Driving through Manchester just before the election, I had never seen so many ‘Vote Labour’ signs in my life, because the misery the Iron Lady put them through will never be forgotten; they know more than anyone the injustice of rightwing economic policies.

A friend recently said to me, in a discussion about the coalition spending plans, that she thought it was ‘the right time for rightwing economic policy’. Rightwing economic policy, let me tell you now, will result in rightwing social policy. Rightwing economic policy will hurt millions of people and ruin lives. Sitting in a cosy middle class suburb of London, it is very easy to step back from it all and talk about the spending cuts as though we were in an economics A-level class, but taking economic policy in isolation will never come near the human damage that will be done. 

.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This was the most deeply moving piece of prose I have ever read.
Myles said…
Sarcasm I presume?

I suppose you like the idea of a "choppy" recovery (to qoute George Osbourne), higher tuition fees, job losses, strikes, a slowing economy and our highly valued public services coming under serious threat do you?!

Sarcasm..lowest form of wit.....

Popular posts from this blog

A warm welcome

. Why blog on ARS NOTORIA? I have set up this website,  ARS NOTORIA ,  (the notable art) as an opportunity for like-minded people like you to jot down your thoughts and share them with us on what I hope will be a high profile blog. . ARS NOTORIA is conceived as an outlet: a way for you to get things off your chest, shake those bees out of your bonnet and scratch that itch. The idea is that you do so in a companionable blogging environment, one that that is less structured - freer. Every article you care to write or photograph or picture you care to post will appear on its own page and you are pretty much guaranteed that people will read with interest what you produce and take time to look at what you post. Personal blogs are OK, but what we long for, if we can admit it, are easy-going, loose knit communities: blogging hubs where we can share ideas and pop in and out as frequently, or as seldom, as we like. You will be able to moderate and delete any of the comments made on 

Phil Hall: The Taleban are a drug cartel disguised as an Islamist movement

Truly the Taleban could have arranged as many bombings and terrorists acts as they liked in the UK. There are many Pashtun young men and women in cities in the UK who still have large extended families back in Afghanistan and who could be forced into doing something they should not. But guess what. So far there have been no attacks by Afghans on British soil. Why? It is a mystery. News comes from Afghanistan and the recent UN report that the Taleban and the drug trade are intertwined and that now the Taleban, who are mainly Pashtun, are officially in command of an international drug cartel.  News comes from Afghanistan that Taleban drug lords go to Dubai to live high on the hog and gamble and sleep with women and luxuriate in all the that the freedom to consume has to offer, while their footsoldiers, peasant fighters, are deluded and told that they are fighting a patriotic religious war.  And though they are told they are fighting a religious war what really matters to them in tr

Our Collective Caliban

At the risk of seeming digitally provincial, I’m going to illustrate my point with an example from a recent Guardian blog. Michel Ruse, who is apparently a philosopher, suggested that, whilst disagreeing with creationists on all points, and agreeing with Dawkins et al on both their science and philosophy, it might be wiser and more humane (humanist, even) not to vilify the religious as cretinous and incapable of reason. Which seems reasonable, to me. According to many below-the-line responses he is a ‘half-baked’ atheist, ‘one of the more strident and shrill New Apologists’ and, apparently, “needs to get a pair’. And that’s just from the first twenty comments. A recent article by a screenwriter at a US site was titled ‘Why I Won’t Read Your Fucking Screenplay.’ Tough guy. I wonder how his Christmas cards read. I’m going to sound like a maiden aunt dismayed by an unsporting bridge play and can perhaps be accused of needing to ‘get a pair’ myself (although, before you