SO the cuts are here. As I attempted to explain in my last letter, the reasoning behind the cuts are wrong, citing the size of the deficit (60 per cent of GDP) today compared to when we created the NHS (250 per cent of GDP). Now even the economics of the cuts are proving ill-considered. This goes to show the real reason behind them is ideological, favouring big business and typical Tory philosophies.

For example, Professor David Blanchflower – leading economist – fiercely condemned the savage £81billion assault on the welfare state as the "greatest error seen in our lifetime." He went on: "There's no example in history where such a thing as this has ever worked. It generates double dip recession." Prof Blanchflower holds posts in Stirling, Bonn, Munich and Dartmouth universities, was awarded a CBE in 2009 for his services to industry and the Bank of England and sat on the Bank's rate-setting committee for three years

Want more? At the Institute for Fiscal Studies, analyst James Browne insisted that, "overall, families with children seem to be the biggest losers." While its acting director Carl Emmerson added that the spending review was "regressive".

Meanwhile, in terms of creating unemployment, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development chief economic adviser Doctor John Philpott said that the Chancellor had "conveniently" ignored the government's own Office for Budget Responsibility's previous forecast of 660,000 job losses, stating that the total figure was more likely to be a staggering 750,000 by 2015, "if the coalition sticks to its longer term spending plans".

Then there's the Federation of Small Businesses chairman John Walker who responded to the cuts with: "As our research shows, small firms are at tipping point and lack the confidence to take on the 500,000 people that will be made redundant as a result of these cuts."

What is really needed here is a bit of justice and common sense. A mere two per cent Wealth Tax on the richest ten per cent of the population would raise £78 billion in just one year – almost the total equivalent of the CSR measures (£83 billion) over four years.

Carl Spiby

St Briavels