The Government claims that “We’re all in this together”. But even with Eric Pickles’ 'transition grant' into account, the poorest areas will do worse out of this settlement.
The Government is fond of claiming that “We’re all in this together”. But even taking Eric Pickles’ ‘transition grant‘ into account, it is abundantly clear that the poorest areas will do worse out of this settlement.
Left Foot Forward has carried out a simple econometric analysis of the local government cuts and compared the post-transition grant “change in estimated ‘revenue spending power’ 2011-12” with the 2007 index of multiple deprivation – the last analysis available. The figures speak for themselves.
In London, there is a strong correlation between the two variables. Poor areas like Hackney (-8.9%), Newham (-8.9%), Tower Hamlets (-8.9%), and Islington (-8.8%) find themselves with the deepest cuts while richer areas like Richmond (-0.61%), Havering (-1.71%), and Harrow (-1.9%) are best off.
The x-axis covers the index of multiple deprivation (50 is the most deprived area) while the y-axis covers the percentage fall in ‘revenue spending power’.
A similar pattern takes place in metropolitan areas. Here Manchester, Liverpool, South Tyneside, and Knowsley get take the maximum hit of -8.9% while less deprived areas like Solihull (-3.49%), Dudley, (-3.39%), and Trafford (-3.79%) do far better.
UPDATE 18.41:
It has been pointed out to me that the local government figures include NHS support for social care. If this were excluded the picture would be even more stark.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
180 Responses to “Eric Pickles’ cuts target Britain’s poorest areas”
13eastie
@Valueofnothing
No it wouldn’t.
First, Labour are in control of only a tiny number of local councils.
Second, this continues to ignore the absolute level of LA spending per capita in these places. How can this not be relevant in determining where cuts can be afforded?
London Hazards
RT @FalseEcon: RT @johannhari101: The Tory cuts announced today hit the poorest areas hardest: http://bit.ly/gjxG3I via excellent @leftf …
Noxi
RT @johannhari101: The Tory cuts announced today hit the poorest areas hardest: http://bit.ly/gjxG3I via excellent @leftfootforward
Tony Dowling
RT @June4th: RT @johannhari101: The Tory cuts announced today hit the poorest areas hardest: http://bit.ly/gjxG3I via excellent @leftfoo …
Valueofnothing
I was talking about a divide between tory/liberal/tory liberal coalition councils and all other councils. So my other group would be much bigger than labour controlled councils as it would contain lab=lib coalitions and lab-independent coalitions. I guess though you would have to take this for the whole country to give sufficient sample size.