The prospect of rural fire stations in Staveley, Arnside, Walney, Lazonby and Frizington being axed is tragic: tragic for the fire workers who will be made redundant, for their families, for the countless individuals whose lives will be put at risk, for the county as a whole and for the many visitors to the region (Gazette, October 29, 'Lives at risk as cuts bite').

It would be wrong to politicise this issue, but it would also wrong not to point out the glaringly obvious: namely, that the cuts being consulted upon are a direct result of the austerity measures pursued by this government and the previous coalition government.

The aim of such measures is to reduce the government deficit. No one would argue with that.

But at least three recent Nobel Prize winners within the field of economics (Professors Angus Deaton, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz) have argued with the means by which the UK government is trying to achieve that aim.

Their central point is that austerity measures reduce spending capacity and impede growth. Only when an economy is flourishing should governments risk such measures. At all other times they will lead to a flattening out of the economy.

And that - sadly - is precisely what is happening to the UK economy. According to the latest figures, growth has since the last quarter of this year reduced from 0.7 per cent to 0.5 per cent. That is a significant downturn.

Of course, we need to acknowledge that there is growth. Who wouldn't? But we also need to face the fact this growth is febrile and unpredictable and its benefits do not extend to all sections of society.

Yet, it is on the assumption that cuts in public expenditure will inevitably lead to increased growth that we are being asked to consider the closure of rural fire stations.

Even if I were to accept that such closures were justifiable on the basis of overall growth, I would have severe reservations given the fact that these cuts will do no such thing. Unemployment and social insecurity can only serve to reduce demand, and reduced demand can only serve to slow down the market. If there are fewer people to buy, there is less to sell - and, if there is less to sell, the markets decline.

What the cuts do achieve is the deepening of social and economic inequality. And that is precisely what cutting rural fire stations will lead to. More people will be made redundant, more lives will be put at risk, families will be put under increasing pressure, and the idea of community will be increasingly eroded. And - crucially - no long-term economic good will come of it.

It is essential that we resist these cuts - not just because they are unfair (which they are), not just because they put lives at risk (which they do), but because they are (on their own economic terms) counter-productive. They can only lead to a more diminished and impoverished society.

Professor Jon Nixon

Kendal