The defunding of Local Authorities and increased centralisation and government control

GGumteeth - no, I wasn't offended at all and I notice that so far, your interesting OP seems to have been ignored, other than by our usual group of people who supported local government.
grow stuff posted a link to the disparity, the way poor northern towns like mine lost out financially, whilst wealthy London boroughs had their funding increased. It stinks.
There are so many areas that have been highlighted by this Corona Virus, where if we hadn't had our local services decimated, things could have been managed so much better.
Schools, residential care homes, social care - so many now out of l.a. control and operating as profit making.
Yes, we landed lucky with Andy Burnham. I often wonder how different this country would be if he'd won the Labour leadership, rather than Mr Corbyn - but that's a whole other discussion.

I was an inspector of schools in a Local Authority. We had quite a big team of inspectors and advisory teachers, which was very well regarded by our schools. Since I retired I have been aware that our team and others like it have been cut back to a bare minimum. I can't help feeling that the management of resources during lockdown and the current mess around the return of pupils to schools could have been better managed if those LA teams had still been in place across the country. Apart from anything else, we had an effective LA network of mutual support across the country.

Some local authorities are little more than procurers of outsourced services.

This was written by the Institute of Fiscal Studies in November 2019:

Key facts and figures

1. Cuts to funding from central government have led to a 17% fall in councils’ spending on local public services since 2009–10 – equal to 23% or nearly £300 per person. Almost this entire cut took place in the first half the 2010s. Indeed, spending is budgeted to have risen modestly since its nadir in 2017–18 as business rates revenues, council tax rises and ring-fenced funding for social care have offset continued cuts to general-purpose grants from central government.

2. Local government has become increasingly reliant on local taxes for revenues. Council tax paid by local residents makes up almost half of revenues – up from just over a third in 2009–10 – and retained business rates account for 30%, up from nothing. After most councils froze their council tax during the first half of the 2010s, over the last four years council tax revenues have grown nearly 15% per person in real terms. This reflects an 8% real terms increase in tax rates since 2015–16 and at least a 4% real terms reduction in how much councils spend on helping low income households pay their council tax bills.

3. Councils’ spending is increasingly focused on social care services – now 57% of all service budgets. This reflects the fact that councils have cut what they spend themselves on housing, transport, planning, and cultural and leisure services by 40% or more per person in order to limit cuts to social care services – although income from fees and charges means overall spending on
these services has not fallen quite so much. As a result, spending per person on acute children’s social care services is budgeted to be 2% higher than in 2009–10, and will probably be even higher given councils have overspent relative to budgets by 8% on average over the last four years.

4. A 4% boost to funding next year would still leave spending per person at least 20% lower than in 2009–10. And in the longer term, billions of pounds of additional funding from government grants or new devolved taxes will likely be needed to meet the rising costs of service provision – even if council tax increases at double the rate of inflation each year.

5. Councils in more deprived areas have done less well from the NHB than those in more affluent areas, in part because bigger payments are made for new properties in higher council tax bands. In contrast, they have retained at least as much business rates revenue growth, on average. In areas with two-tier local government, districts have retained the bulk of NHB payments and business rates growth and many rely on this for a large share of their overall funding. In contrast, counties have seen less funding than they would have if equivalent funding had been allocated according to spending needs assessments.

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14563

(Sorry! I couldn't find the equivalent for Scotland, Wales or NI, but I'm sure the info is there somewhere.)

Of most relevance to the COVID-19 situation is that public health was transferred as part of the 2011/12 reforms from the NHS to local authorities. That move was widely welcomed, but cuts to local authorities have meant they can't fund it, so the amount spent is now miniscule. That's why central government have to bring in the likes of Serco and other private companies to operate the test and trace operation. As it will be operated mainly by minimum wage workers from call centres, I honestly can't see it being that effective.

Independent Sage is calling for a local system which tests, traces and contacts people PLUS offers real support to people who need to self-isolate. At the moment, the idea is to offer advice (ie go and read the relevant web page), whereas people self-isolating have much greater needs, including help with shopping, financial help, transport to and from hospital, accommodation if living in over-crowded conditions, etc.

I've never voted for them and I'm always surprised that so many do.

We started from a low point. Austerity was never needed, it was just a political choice. The running down of public services certainly hindered all the efforts to deal with the pandemic.

With decades of funding cuts, staffing cuts and reduced services anyway, there was no way to instantly create the vital support network we needed - hence the long delays every step of the way - we've had to play catch up and it has cost lives!

No, I don't think it has worked. Our country has been left weak and debilitated - and the result of this has been an inability to co-ordinate fractured and resource-starved services which we needed to respond in an effective way to the pandemic.

The austerity that we were told was essential has in fact destroyed much of what was positive and forward-looking in the UK. At a stroke, we see it was a false economy because far more money has had to be spent to try and deal with a crisis that all our services were totally unprepared for. Short term thinking brings long term problems.

Thank goodness for the many British people who have done their utmost to keep things running and to support their local communities. Our government deserves no thanks.

It's interesting to think what these cuts to LA's have done.

We cannot open all our schools as they are often older overcrowded buildings with little outdoor space. In many of the countries where they have been able to move further with the this the schools are more modern with plenty of outdoor space.

We have had a centralised track and trace system. Not only is this because it is the nature of the governing party to centralise and privatise, but you would have to ask whether the local public health departments have the wherewithal to meet the needs if it were local - again as we have seen in many other countries.

And really I have no need to talk about our child protection services which have been understaffed for years or our Care Service which has been fragmented and underfunded for years.

All the poor preparedness because of the doctrine of the Conservatives has been the "horse shoe nail" for the UK.

“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,
For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,
For the want of a horse the rider was lost,
For the want of a rider the battle was lost,
For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.”

Benjamin Franklin reminded us of this poem in The Way to Wealth way back in 1758 and I would have thought the natural, day to day conservatism in most people would have had it's meaning at the heart of what they do - but it seems the Conservative Party has long forgotten the pennies spent on preparation save pounds and, more recently, lives.

We're in the central belt in Scotland and our councils are really struggling too. Too much centralisation doesn't work!

In England, I don't think it's so much that money has been taken away from one area and given to another, but all local authorities have lost money - some have lost more than others.

I don't know how it works in Scotland, but England money from council tax is paid into a national "pot" then redistributed according to a formula based on need.

I live in quite a wealthy authority and, historically, we've paid much more into the pot than we ever received. However, we now pay less proportionately, but still the grant has been cut. Poorer authorities have experienced a double whammy because they still pay more or less the same, but receive less. In this area, it's been an encouragement to build more houses because we receive grants for new builds (but no extra infrastructure).

The same has happened in Scotland, under the SNP, which most definitely isn’t Conservative!

So much authority and funding has been taken away from LA’s and given to the Central Belt. I live in NE Scotland and we’ve lost so much control over emergency services and health services. My area has the lowest CT block grant from Holyrood and the lowest funding for schools.

I'm afraid that I voted against devolution for the NE. Not because of any 'No' campaign; I don't remember there being much of a 'No' campaign in Durham. I can't remember exactly why I voted No now. I think it was because we didn't seem to be offered very much and it added in another layer of government (we had an LA and District Authorities then, we don't now). I think I regret it now..

To answer GGumpteenth's OP. We've seen Local government being eroded ever since the Thatcher era without much protest. I don't think people realised just how much was done by the local authorities and how much centralisation and centrally imposed budget cuts affected their work.

I also think that, as we tended to have so many Labour controlled councils, Labour got a lot of the blame for 'poor' services when in fact they were struggling with restricted budgets.

I've no doubt that people will leap in to tell me how wasteful their Labour councils were, but I'm not sure they would have been any better under the control of any other party.

Fennel I think he's just a nihilist who enjoys winning games.

I know. The tribalism always amazes me.

I didn't realise that jane - ie election of Driscoll. We left the area in 2000 and returned 2 years ago.
@ growstuff - I'm gobsmacked! DC obviously has a fear of an uprising of the 'workers'. And it could have affected his family estate in N Co Durham.

Growstuff I’m in no way defending DC but in fact John Orescott’s idea wasn’t for a mayor, it was for a regional devolved assembly which would have gone right from Berwick on the Scottish border, down to Middlesbrough on the Tees.
John Prescott has gravely underestimated the tribalism that exists up here.

People in Teesside didn’t want to be lumped in with the inhabitants of Durham or Newcastle and vice-versa. And Sunderland has its own unique identity.

Sorry that last message was replying to Fennel.

we could have had one on Tyneside but for some reason it never happened

We do have a mayor, for Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland. He was voted into office last year.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Driscoll
You’ve probably never heard of him because he does b*gger all.

When the idea of having a combined authority to include the LA’s south of the Tyne, they all decided not to join in.

Correction ... against having a regional mayor.

Well! Goodness me! Guess who masterminded the vote to have a North East regional mayor!

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/12/dominic-cummings-honed-strategy-2004-vote-north-east

I envy you Iam having Andy Burnham as Mayor - seems he was made for the job. He was ok as Minister for health under Gordon Brown but more at home now.
There was a time in the late 90s when regional mayors were suggested and we could have had one on Tyneside but for some reason it never happened. What a shame as this area has many problems due to cuts in funding by the tories.
I was out in Newcastle once in those days and there was a TV crew around to hear people's views and they stopped me. But I was too selfconscious so they moved on.

It's what's been going on in Scotland and really doesn't work. Local authorities are really struggling. The cash from Westminster to support LAs (£155 million) still hasn't been distributed to them.

Pantglas English authorities are mainly funded by central government too, except there's a formula which collects money in the form of council tax and then redistributes via grants.

The grants have been cut, which means that local authorities haven't had the money to pay for services.

Changes to the NHS decimated local public health, which is what is needed now for testing and tracing.

The biggest cuts have been to social care and I expect many people have themselves or have elderly relatives who have been affected.

Local authorities with the greatest needs (mainly Labour held) have had the biggest cuts.

I suspect things are different in Wales GGUMTEENTH as we are mostly funded through Cardiff - you’ll note I said different, not better.....

You have done well with Andy Burnham. Earlier in the year I moved three miles down the road, out of North Yorkshire and into West Yorkshire. I think West Yorkshire are getting a Mayor but have a feeling that doesn't include North Yorkshire but I only caught that in passing so not absolutely sure. The West Midlands guy seems to be doing quite well too although, again, I know nothing in depth about him, more about carpets and curtains, bathrooms and kitchens at the moment

Plantglas, I doubt one link would do it. It has been Conservative policy for at least a decade. You may have seen the cuts to local authorities in your area - or perhaps it hasn't affected you. The views from both those positions are interesting. If you are a Conservative voter it is more likely that you will know where to find their policy on LAs.