Matthew Jenkins' BlogA blog about Worcester, politics and the environment

A new group has been set up in Worcester to fight the cuts to jobs and services in the city. I went along to the inaugural meeting on 1st November to find out what was being planned and what I could do to help. I’d already set up a website for them (www.worcesteragainstthecuts.org.uk), but I wanted to see who was there and what would be discussed.

There was strong representation from various unions, a number of whom spoke about the likely impact of the cuts. Clearly these cuts are going to have a serious impact on jobs and services.

A problem at this stage is that although the amount of money that the coalition government wishes to cut from various budgets has been announced, there are few cases of definite cuts to jobs and services. Hence, it is difficult to motivate people to protest against something that is not clear and precise. Also, it is likely that cuts will not be announced at the same time and so as each cut comes along there may be some who are willing to protest, namely those directly effected either through loss of job or loss of service, but many will feel that it doesn’t really effect them so they won’t be motivated to come along.

The important points that I gained from the meeting and that I hope will form part of the campaign are that:

1. We need to include as broad a cross-section of people in the campaign, not just the unions, and
2. We need to ensure that people understand that although many individual cuts may not directly effect them, taken together they will cause lasting damage to nearly all people and communities in Worcester and Worcestershire.

It will be difficult to hold together such a broad group of people, who may have quite different ideas about how the deficit should be managed. However, I believe that it is essential that we convince the wider community of the need to take action against the scale and pace of the proposed cuts.

The coalition government has been accused of being ideologically obsessed with shrinking the size of the state, at whatever the social costs. Whilst they maintain that the current and future cuts are unavoidable; there is no alternative, they say. Who is right?

According to Charles Moore, writing in The Telegraph (18/09/10), the cuts planned to welfare, schools, health and police are far more drastic than those by Margaret Thatcher in 1979. According to Cabinet ministers that he has spoken to in private, “they are full of zeal both for cuts and for reform, but they don’t like to say so in public.”

This seems to confirm the belief many have that the speed and size of the cuts is politically driven. Hence, it is a matter for political debate.

We need to be challenging the government to prove that the damage these cuts will inevitably do to society are justified, whilst offering viable alternatives.

A clear alternative is to cut the deficit much more slowly. Another is to alter the balance of deficit reduction, away from cuts and towards raising more money through a fairer tax system and reducing tax avoidance. Currently the split is 20% tax, 80% cuts. Another is through investing in areas that badly need it and that create jobs, such as the Green New Deal that would move us towards a low carbon economy, by investing in renewables, insulating homes, etc.

Rather than a zeal for cuts, we need a zeal for fairness and a better way of coping with the current economic situation.