Highest cuts to "revenue spending power" (upper tier authorities):
LB Hackney 8.9%
LB Tower Hamlets 8.9%
LB Newham 8.9%
Manchester MBC 8.9%
Rochdale MBC 8.9%
Knowsley MBC 8.9%
Liverpool MBC 8.9%
St Helens MBC 8.9%
Doncaster MBC 8.9%
S Tyneside MBC 8.9%
Blackburn with Darwen UA 8.9%
Halton UA 8.9%
Hartlepool UA 8.9%
Hull UA 8.9%
Middlesbrough UA 8.9%
NE Lincs UA 8.9%
Lowest cuts to "revenue spending power" (upper tier authorities):
Poole 0.97%
Hampshire 0.95%
West Sussex 0.65%
Wokingham 0.63%
Richmond-upon-Thames 0.61%
Buckinghamshire 0.60%
Surrey 0.31%
Dorset +0.25% (yes, that is a plus - an increase not a cut)
I can't work out if this is some kind of reverse redistribution from the most deprived communities in the country to the most prosperous ones, or simply a sort of punishment for people that had the temerity to vote Labour.
I sometimes think that this government is trolling us.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps it is the fact these 'Labour' areas were heavily subsidised by the Labour Govt for 13 years and they still managed to waste money.....!
ReplyDeleteAlso my local council is Conservative run and they have had a 7.8% 'cut'...
It is quite easy to put together a list of councils and say the Govt is being political, surely the main issue is how the leadership of the councils has been spending taxpayers money over the past few years, what they have in reserves, what planning they have done for this and how they will respond!
Hi Luke
ReplyDeleteI've augmented the spreadsheet published by CLG to show % cuts in grant for 2011-12 as well as total budget excluding the NHS Social Care money. It's here.
Anon 9.50am
ReplyDeleteCan't speak for the others in list but Hackney has been praised by auditors for building up reserves, freezing council tax for 5 years (best record in the country) and has one of best records in UK for acheiving Gershon back-office efficiency targets.
We were heavily subsidised by Labour Govt because of our extreme levels of need and deprivation. It's called redistribution.
Simon,
ReplyDeleteThat information is fascinating.
Where have you pulled it from?
As in, if I wanted to cite the stats, how should I go about that?
Simply a readjustment after years of the last Labour administration pouring money into its heartlands.
ReplyDeleteIn the 80's the Tory government ripped the heart out of the north - the labour gov.tried to regenerate these deprived areas quite rightly - what other hope did they have? What do you think the social impact of redundancy and long term unemployment is? i for one would rather pay higher taxes so people across the country can have more opportunity. i can not see what is fair or progressive about taking away funding that helps those most in need. Lets face it the more divide there is in society the more problems there will be for all of us. I firmly believe that this country does care for its society - thats the future - not what is being proposed
ReplyDeleteThey always make political choices when it comes to spending and cuts. The sad thing is that
ReplyDeletethese cuts will push the economy into a deeper recession.
These barbaric cuts are going to save 6 billion, but we just spent that bailing out independent Southern Ireland's banks.No revenue has been saved and the cuts will cost us all dearly long term .
ReplyDeleteWhy not ensure the corporations pay all their tax
Increase tax to all earning over £100K
withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq:
Scrap Trident
This would save 120 billion per year.
Reads like reverse redistribution to me. Fenland is getting the maximum cut, and you don't get much more reactionary than north-east Cambridgeshire. It's dirt poor, but it can always be relied upon to elect Tories who hold their voters in contempt.
ReplyDeleteSo no, it's not because Labour had been pouring money into its heartlands. It's because Pickles is engaging in a particularly naked and brutal class war.
The trouble is Labour did not do many favours to its working class supporters as most left it!
ReplyDeleteLabour in office bribed its heartlands. Only rather than bribe them through decent regeneration and jobs, it bribed them through welfare dependency and a growing Town Hall public sector payroll vote of outreach officers and diversity quota monitors.
ReplyDeleteNow "there's no money left" it's time to claw that back in.
Perhaps rather than whinge you could think of getting rid of the likes of Hackney Today, but then where would the masses get their beaming pictures of Mr Pipe & friends announcing tractor production is up?
Council newspapers don't represent a net cost. If you abolish them you have to pay the local newspaper to carry statutory notices. Normally this costs more than publishing a council freesheet.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could identify real non-jobs rather than make some up? Usually the ones with silly titles still do something useful.
Isn't it Ironic you would think the comment below was from a far left Trotsky organisation-but in fact its from the Fascist BNP?
ReplyDeletePut Blair, Brown and Cameron on trial for war crimes
Thu, 16/12/2010 - 01:00 | Martin Wingfield
16TH DECEMBER 2010: HEADS were bowed and there was silence in the chamber of the European Parliament in Strasbourg yesterday as embarrassed MEPs slunk deep into their seats, trying to avoid looking at their colleague making his speech.
That was because Nick Griffin was pulling no punches in his condemnation of 'this criminal war' during a debate on the conflict in Afghanistan.
This is what the MEP for the North West of England had to say:
"Madame President
This report demolishes the lies of the British political class about the Afghan War.
I don´t know the names of any of the innocent Afghan victims of this wicked war. But I do know that it has nothing to do with British interests. And I know the names of the 18 brave young men from my constituency who have paid with their lives for this corrupt madness in the last year alone:
What a criminal waste of brave young lives!
It is, of course, no business of the European Union what wars Britain should or should not fight. That is for the British people, and our elected representatives, in our Houses of Parliament in Westminster, to decide.
Just as it will be for us to decide, one happy day, to put Messrs Blair, Brown and Cameron on trial for war crimes. Because Afghanistan, just like Iraq, is a criminal war."
Thatcher sestrited real economy and jobs!
ReplyDeleteOn a totally unrelated subject, it was sad to hear Ed Miliband's office's knee jerk response to Bob Ainsworth's comments about drugs
ReplyDelete(the Today Programme, Radio 4).
For the government, James Brokenshire argued with these ideas in a considered way.
I don't know what the answer is but the Miliband office has clearly not moved on very much from Blair and Brown.
So the Tory contributors here think that there shouldn't be additional help for the poorest areas. Will any Tory minister openly state this - of course not.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your comment about 'non-jobs', Luke. Nearly always the jobs cited are linked to equality or community development - issues the Right hate, despite the rhetoric about 'big society' which is very unlikely to happen in poor areas without organisation and input
Obviously 'annoymous' would cite the same 'surely'.. reasons what ever size the cuts were.
ReplyDeleteI'm in Halton and we didn't just lose the so-called 8.9% we also lost £5 million in WNF which many affluent tory areas wouldn't be in receipt of.
We are also an 'excellent' rated authority with sensible reserves and praised by our auditors for management of resources, so the 'surely' bits are absolute twaddle in the real world.
We have £20 million to find for next year, (after £6 million cut in this summer after we had set the council tax - unprecedented until now)then we have £16 million to cut the following year and £12 million the following year. That's cutting 37% of current funding.
These cuts are political and by this time next year (2011) a lot more people will have realised it.
Then in May 2012 many coalition councillors right across the country will reap what their govt has sown for them.
Although the cuts are regrettable it can still be possible for local council to do more with less with the use, for example, of technology.
ReplyDeleteThe City of Edinburgh Council Interactive Learning (CECil) platform has so far saved more than £1m.
A case study of the project can be found here - http://ht.ly/4bwby.
Sincerely,
Peter Styles, Brightwave
www.brightwave.co.uk