Why our communities are paying the price for George Osborne’s failure

June 29, 2013 9:30 am

Communities discovered this week that once again their local council – and the services it provides – are to be hardest hit by the Coalition government’s latest cuts. Let’s be straight; it is because of the Chancellor’s economic failure nationally that we will be seeing further, deeper cuts locally, and it is families and businesses in local communities that will pay the price for George Osborne and David Cameron’s mistakes nationally on growth and the deficit.

On top of the 33% reduction in government grant that councils have already been told they’d have to face in this parliament, local government learnt this week that there will now be an additional 10% cut in 2015/16. It is the largest reduction in any part of the public sector, even though local government is more efficient than Whitehall.

The Labour Leader on the LGA, and LGA Vice-Chair, Cllr David Sparks said:

“People will wake up in two or three years’ time and in many cases their local council will not be there as they know it.”

 Sir Merrick Cockell, the Conservative Leader of the Local Government Association, echoed this concern:

“Services on which people rely will have to be significantly reduced as a result… some services will be wound down entirely.” He warned his Tory colleagues in central government that “some councils will simply not have enough money to meet all their statutory responsibilities”.

 All this means that local authority leaders will now have to make unenviable choices between keeping streetlights on and libraries open, maintaining roads and Sure Start centres, and supporting schools. The way the Government is devolving the biggest cuts and the toughest decisions to councils is running away from its responsibilities.

And the way it is doing it is fundamentally unfair. On Wednesday, the Chancellor had the nerve to say:

“It is not possible to reduce a deficit of this size without asking all sections of the population to play their parts – but those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden.”

This will raise a hollow laugh in the most deprived communities and councils which have already been hardest hit by the cuts. One statistic tells the story; between 2010/11 and 2014/15 the ten most deprived local authorities in England will lose six times the amount in spending per head of population compared to the ten least deprived local authorities.

The Prime Minister says “we’re all in this together”, and yet in this financial year councils in some of the most deprived parts of the country like Burnley and Hastings are facing the maximum cut of 8.8% in spending power per head, while his own local authority of West Oxfordshire – one of the least deprived areas is the country – is actually getting an increase of 3.1%.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Instead of planning 10% cuts to local government, two years ahead, the Government should be boosting growth now. If they took action, there would be more money around and council services would not face such deep cuts. Boosting growth and living standards this year and next year would bring in more tax revenues and reduce the scale of the cuts to local government in 2015.

But they haven’t done that. Nor have they done anything on housing. After all the hype, the Government has announced no new investment in affordable home building for this year or next year despite the advice of the IMF. And as for Michael Heseltine’s radical recommendations to devolve funding to local areas, what was actually announced was a damp squib

Labour would act now to boost growth so that future cuts would not be so deep, and we would build homes. But if David Cameron and George Osborne fail to act, we will have to deal with a difficult inheritance in 2015. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have said these spending totals for 2015/16 will have to be our starting point, but we will make different choices.

For example, we would not be paying for new free schools in areas where there are enough school places, while parents in other areas struggle to get their children into a local school. And there is no justification for the way in which the coalition has imposed the biggest reductions in local government grant on the poorest and most deprived communities. A Labour Government would ensure that the funding that is available is distributed much more fairly.

But even more importantly, we are going to change the way we do things in government. Ed Miliband announced at Labour’s National Policy Forum last weekend that he has asked Sir Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester council, Sharon Taylor, Leader of Stevenage council and Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney to lead a new Task Force to advise us on how we can make a difference even when there is less money around.

The case for bringing central and local government funding together – building on Total Place and community budgets – to get the best outcome in terms of services is now overwhelming. In many respects, the current system has reached the limit of its capacity to cope with less funding without radical change. Too much power in England is still wielded in Westminster, and change must involve moving away from the past when central government told local government what to do, to letting local government get on with it.

Hilary Benn MP is Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

  • Ben Cobley

    I’ve always liked Hilary Benn as a relatively intelligent, sensible and human sort of politician, but then I read the first sentence to this article:

    “Communities discovered this week that once again their local council –
    and the services it provides – are to be hardest hit by the Coalition
    government’s latest cuts.”

    Erm, no they didn’t. That message is most definitely not getting through.

    This is but a latest example of how Labour’s communications are all over the shop (though that might be to infer that they are interesting, which wouldn’t be correct). We talk to ourselves within the assumptions we share in our cosy little club, and the general public are left blissfully (or not so blissfully) in ignorance.

  • Daniel Speight

    Hilary, so how much leeway do we have on these cuts after the two Eds tell us we will stick to Tory spending plans?

Latest

  • Comment No child should live in danger. Now is the time to end violence against children

    No child should live in danger. Now is the time to end violence against children

    Every five minutes somewhere in the world a child dies as a result of violence. These tragic deaths are not just confined to the war zones that dominate the news. Too often they happen when children should be safe –at home, at school or in the communities where they live. Today’s new report by Unicef UK outlines how violence is now a leading cause of serious injury and death among children. In Bangladesh, more than 20 per cent of girls […]

    Read more →
  • Europe News How would an EU referendum pledge affect Labour’s support?

    How would an EU referendum pledge affect Labour’s support?

    A poll conducted for the Daily Mirror by ComRes has found that most Labour-leaning voters aren’t bothered whether or not the party pledges to have an EU referendum. The poll saw 2,000 Labour-leaning people asked how the party’s stance on an EU referendum would affect their voting intention. 13% said it would make them more likely to vote Labour, while 7% said they would be less likely to do so. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most people (67%) said that an EU referendum […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour’s London Primary must be as accessible as possible

    Labour’s London Primary must be as accessible as possible

    The two-party system is on the way out. If there is a political lesson from the last two months, then that is it. The SNP’s popularity in Scotland and the rising stock of UKIP south of the border tell a clear story of people fed up with politics as usual. They are sick of the tribalism, bored of the politicking, tired of trying to work out who stands for what. They want something different: to be treated honestly, listened to, […]

    Read more →
  • Comment “An important contribution to the immigration debate”? The poisonous rhetoric of Cameron’s Lords nominee

    “An important contribution to the immigration debate”? The poisonous rhetoric of Cameron’s Lords nominee

    Andrew Green has been nominated by David Cameron to be a cross-bench peer in the House of Lords. Previously an ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia, and former Chairperson of Medical Aid for Palestinians – it would seem that Green is a relatively uninteresting appointment. That is, until you spot the last (and current) job on his CV: founding chairperson of MigrationWatch. MigrationWatch describes itself as an ‘independent and non-political think tank‘. But the  group – which on its website declares […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The Government should listen to the Commons on recognising Palestine

    The Government should listen to the Commons on recognising Palestine

    The vote last week by the House of Commons in favour of the recognition of Palestinian statehood was an historic one. True, it has no immediate impact on UK Government policy. But it’s symbolic and long term significance should not be underestimated. Sometimes symbols matter. Its significance has certainly not been lost in Palestine and Israel itself, where it has received considerable attention, not least because of Britain’s historic role in the region. Although the Conservative/Lib Dem Government, much to […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y