You can always tell there's a general election approaching when political leaders start to use those magic words "tax cuts".

After years of determined austerity, David Cameron has today raised the prospect of future public spending savings being used to fund tax cuts.

But hang on a minute - wasn't the public sector squeeze supposed to be necessary to reduce the deficit? If so, how does that square with giving the savings back in tax cuts?

The Prime Minister's tax cuts carrot is being dangled on the day figures show a clear north-south divide over council tax. Having shouldered the biggest budget cuts, local authorities in the North-East are increasing council tax to make ends meet while councils in the south do not face the same financial pressure.

So who will benefit most from these enticing tax cuts? Will it be the people of the North-East who have suffered most from disproportionate cuts, leading to thousands of job losses, and public services being cut to the bone? Of course not - it will be the wealthier members of society who happen to live in the south.

It is a case of recycling inequality. A few pounds back on tax isn't much of a payback when you've lost your local leisure centre, theatre, or arts centre.

Public sector spending is bound to be a key issue at the next election. What we need is a balanced approach to tackling the deficit - one that takes account of the areas of greatest need, rather than ignoring them and exacerbating their problems.

And, quite frankly, a few pounds back in tax isn't much of a payback when you've lost your local leisure centre, theatre, arts centre - or job.