The true cost of cuts could be four times higher than government estimates.
Do you feel slightly discomforted when you hear David Cameron, Nick Clegg, or Eric Pickles talk about local government finance and the future of local government?
Secretary of state Eric Pickles and his local government minister Brandon Lewis seem to be in a state of denial, believing that, if only councils adopted their 50 budget saving recommendations, all will be well. It is simply ridiculous to believe that "cutting out the biscuits" or "sacking a chief executive" will come anywhere near to compensating for the scale of the cuts in local government resources.
Between 2010 and 2015, government funding to local government will be cut by 43% in real terms, which is more than twice the level of cuts experienced across government as a whole.
Recently, Cameron repeated a statement first made by George Osborne in the June spending review advising that the latest revision – described as a 'technical adjustment' – would mean just an extra 2.3% cut in the next few years. Independent experts suggest the figure is closer to an extra 10%.
Neither the Treasury nor the Department for Communities and Local Government will say how they arrived at this 2.3% figure. It rather suggests that the calculation is based on adding apples and pears and dividing by cabbage. I've now written to the prime minister asking him to set out his calculations forthwith.
At the same time as the huge overall cuts, the government is imposing a massive transfer of resources from north to south, from urban to rural, and from the poorest areas to the richest. Many northern, urban areas are getting cuts more than five times per head that of their southern counterparts. This transfer is not just in local government resources; it is also taking place in police, fire and health.
Guardian
