IS this the “fairer” Britain we were promised? In order to reduce the national deficit we must all – we are told – make a contribution.

And so it has arrived – the revival of Thatcherism in all its glory.

The fact the poorest will pay more under the Budget and Treasury announcements – allowing the real foundation of the Conservative Party to take its usual effect; keep the richest rich, and the poorest poor.

The very fabric of life for the poorest will be hit – high unemployment, school building funds withdrawn, cuts for the disabled claiming benefits, cuts to free school meals, poor health care, child benefits frozen, neglected social housing, VAT increased, future job prospects nil, cuts in tax credits, rises in crime, housing benefit capped, university placements lowered and all this ahead of government departments on which the poorest rely the most preparing for cuts of up to 40 per cent.

The Liberal Democrats despite opposing these massive and aggressive cuts have now signed up to the Conservative agenda.

Why is there such a great need for these aggressive cuts to pay off the deficit over four years?

It is obvious if the debt were reduced over a greater number of years then the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people would be safeguarded and the prospects and lives of the poorest would be far greater.

Dan Sidley, Phoenix Boulevard, York.

• Like many people I watched with interest to see what wonderful solutions the Lib Dems and their new-found mates the Tories would come up with to resolve our present crisis.

All I can now say is why are they not held answerable to the same rules as the rest of the public sector? After all we pay their wages.

I spent 30 years negotiating, amongst other things, disciplinary procedures for civil servants who blotted their copy books.

Any press officer or public servant who produced a public statement containing 25 errors would never survive their probation period let alone remain as a member of the cabinet.

Such standards of inefficiency would not be tolerated at any level, let alone at ministerial level, where their actions can have such devastating results on so many children, teaching staff, not forgetting the many building contractors involved etc.

If Michael Gove’s standards, which apparently have recently resulted in a fifth list of schools being published, are indicative of the sort of levels of efficiency which are apparently acceptable to our newly propped-up Prime Minister, then God help us.

Liz Edge, Parkside Close, York.