David Cameron's "no one will be left behind" message rings hollow as deprived areas suffer the most from council cuts and are shut out of Local Enterprise Partnership zones.
Katie Schmuecker is a Senior Research Fellow at ippr north
The Department for Communities and Local Government recently – and with very little fanfare – published the latest index of multiple deprivation figures. Some initial analysis by ippr north reveals a familiar picture, with urban areas of the North, inner London and seaside towns continuing to top the deprivation league.
Given David Cameron has said that “no one will be left behind” by his government, the publication of these figures seems a good moment to consider what this government is doing for those living in our most deprived neighbourhoods.
The best route out of deprivation for most people is to find good quality employment. This means economic growth and job creation must be priorities for national and local government. This is particularly important in areas where deprivation is high.
The government has put its faith in local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) to lead private sector growth. These partnerships between local authorities and local business are responsible for developing an economic strategy for their area; identifying and driving opportunities for growth.
But looking at the list of local authorities with the deepest levels of deprivation, six of the top 20 (Blackpool, Burnley, Blackburn with Darwen, Hull, North East Lincolnshire and Preston) are not even within an LEP area.
The response might be so what. After all, aren’t LEPs devoid of any funding or powers? While there is some truth in this perception, they are the only game in town in terms of local economic development, and it is for local areas to make of them what they will. Furthermore, the 2011 budget changed things by providing LEPs with a purpose: only areas that have an LEP are eligible to establish an enterprise zone, with their altered planning regulations and tax breaks designed to boost growth.
So will the existence of an enterprise zone make any difference to people living in deprived neighbourhoods? The answer is only if links are made between areas of deprivation and areas of opportunity – this could be in the form of improved transport links, or training to support people to take up new job opportunities.
The role of local authorities in directing this investment to the people that need it most, will be crucial.
But here’s the rub for our most deprived places: they have witnessed larger cuts to their local authority budgets. Fourteen of the authorities with the deepest pockets of deprivation saw their “spending power” cut by 8.9 per cent, the maximum amount allowed by the government, and all 20 authorities received an above average cut to their spending power (the median was 6 per cent).
| District | % of neighbourhoods in the most deprived 1% | Central Government cut to local authority “spending power” in 2011/12 | |
| 1 | Blackpool | 17% | 7.3% |
| 2 | Knowsley | 16% | 8.9% |
| 3 | Liverpool | 14% | 8.9% |
| 4 | Rochdale | 13% | 8.9% |
| 5 | Burnley | 12% | 8.9% |
| 6 | Middlesbrough | 9% | 8.9% |
| 7 | Blackburn with Darwen | 9% | 8.9% |
| 8 | Manchester | 7% | 8.9% |
| 9 | Salford | 7% | 8.5% |
| 10 | Hull | 7% | 8.9% |
| 11 | Redcar and Cleveland | 7% | 8.4% |
| 12 | Bradford | 6% | 8.8% |
| 13 | Barrow-in-Furness | 6% | 8.9% |
| 14 | North East Lincolnshire | 6% | 8.9% |
| 15 | Hartlepool | 5% | 8.9% |
| 16 | Wirral | 5% | 7.4% |
| 17 | Newcastle upon Tyne | 4% | 7.8% |
| 18 | Hastings | 4% | 8.9% |
| 19 | Preston | 4% | 8.9% |
| 20 | Thanet | 4% | 8.9% |
If the aspiration of no one being left behind is to be fulfilled, local authorities and their partners must focus some of their resources on linking deprived individuals to economic opportunities. But this will be difficult for some of our worst off places.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
15 Responses to “Cameron’s Britain: Where the most deprived are left behind”
Liam McKee
LeftFootForward | Cameron's Britain: Where the most deprived are left behind – http://bit.ly/fJk9eG
Broken OfBritain
RT @queerresistance: Cameron's Britain: Where the most deprived are left behind http://fb.me/u6a6FwVL
garrilla
I hate to defend the government but the reason why those Local Authorities are not in a LEP is that there LEP arrangements have not met with government approval. This is not to do directly with their deprivation but the political machinations of the councils and various partners.
The government does have a lack of concern for deprivation however, so I’ll give you a couple of quick pointers. FIrstly, the Local Government settlement used to have a deprivation weighting in it, this has been removed and there is only a population density weighting. This is why Liverpool lost a great deal in the cuts and Crawley gained a great deal. Secondly, the new Enterprise Zones, which are not the same as LEPs, will not be located in areas of high deprivation but is areas with high growth potential. In some areas these may be co-terminus, but that’s accidental.
Nick H.
RT @BrokenOfBritain: RT @queerresistance: Cameron's Britain: Where the most deprived are left behind http://fb.me/u6a6FwVL
Dane Clouston
“The best route out of deprivation for most people is to find good quality employment”.
Yes, that’s about earned income and,eventually, savings and,eventually, unearned income. What about unearned income and wealth?
Would it help if young UK-born UK born citizens received £2,000 on reaching 25 in 2012, £4,000 on reaching 25 in 2013 up to £10,000 on reaching 25 in 2016 and hopefully more thereafter? Such a British Universal Inheritance is the party policy of the EU-sceptic Liberal Party (www.liberal.org.uk – NOT the LibDems), It would be financed by a reform of Inheritance Tax into two taxes, one a flat 10% on giving and one a progressive tax from 10% upwards on receiving, with the former deductible from the latter, together with abolition of all the scandalously unlimited exemptions for lifetime gifts and agricultural, business and shareholding assets for the wealthy. See http://www.universal-inheritance.org.
Why is the conservative political ideology of unfettered Dynastic Capitalism cascading down the generations so widely and so often subconsciously held and not questioned? It is time to replace it, not with state socialist ownership of all capital, but with a new liberal political ideology of Popular Capitalism with Inheritance for All in each new generation. Those going to university could use the £10,000, or eventually more, to help pay for tuition fees: those who do not go to university could use it in all sorts of other ways, reducing financial and social exclusion and poverty and increasing entrepreneurial activity and, eventually, home ownership.
Deprivation starts with vastly unequal inheritance of capital between individuals in each new generation. It is time to spread it more widely into private hands in each new generation. If only socialists would agree with liberals on this, we might get somewhere better!