Evidence that coalition cuts hitting poorest harder

Spending cuts to local government appear to have fallen on poorer (Labour) areas far more severely than wealthier (Tory) ones.

Map of cuts-JPEG

The Tories stopped using the slogan ‘we’re all in it together’ some time ago. Most voters didn’t seem to buy it, and it’s a fair bet that many Tories didn’t buy it either.

And perhaps that shouldn’t come as a surprise, for there was always a suspicion that those carrying the bigger burden of austerity were those who could least afford to. Look, for instance, at the government’s willingness to pay down the deficit through ‘welfare reform’ – something which by its very nature hits the poorest hardest.

It probably won’t come as a surprise to learn, then, that a regional analysis of where spending cuts to local government have fallen since 2010 appears to show that they have hit poorer (Labour) areas far harder than they have wealthier (Tory) ones.

In other words, we aren’t ‘all in it together’.

Here is the map detailing the reduction in spending power experienced by local government since 2010/11. As we can see, particularly hard hit has been the north of England, as well as some of the poorest areas of London. In contrast, areas of the Tory-voting south east appear to have come through recent years of austerity almost unscathed.

Now here, for comparison, is an electoral map from 2010.

Electoral map 2010-JPEG

If you put your thumb over Scotland on the second map so that it matches the first, the maps look strangely similar.

HT: Iain Wright MP

5 Responses to “Evidence that coalition cuts hitting poorest harder”

  1. subtleknife666

    Can anyone be surprised by this? It’s the Tory scumbags’ most central policy to punish the poor and reward the rich, and they are being extremely effective in implementing that policy.

  2. Robert Axford

    We need an army of ‘Robin Hoods’ to straighten this all out!

  3. Joe Dromey

    Whilst biggest cuts are hitting poorest (and Labour) areas, check out what’s happening in their back yards: Oxfordshire (home to Cameron’s Seat), Cheshire East (Osborne’s) and Brentwood (Pickles’) all get an *increase* in funding over the next two years http://labourlist.org/2013/12/eric-pickles-cancels-christmas/

  4. GO

    “‘welfare reform’ – something which by its very nature hits the poorest hardest.”
    This might seem like a minor quibble, but it’s not the case that welfare reform *by its very nature* must hit the poorest hardest. In principle there could be welfare reforms that disproportionately helped the poor and/or hit the rich. So the problem is not welfare reform per se, but welfare reform as practised by the Tories.
    This matters, in my view, because we shouldn’t let the Right redefine the term ‘reform’ such that it becomes a dirty word to those on the Left. Welfare reform doesn’t have to be about benefit cuts, NHS reform doesn’t have to be about privatisation, etc. We shouldn’t be afraid to say we’re going to make reforms where they’re needed.

Leave a Reply