Planned spending cuts for 2015-16 are likely to return to the same areas to squeeze them further
New research has shown yet again that it is the poor who are suffering most from this government’s cuts.
An Election Briefing Note published today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies describes how between 2009-10 and 2014-14, local authority spending per person was cut by 23.4 per cent in real terms. In general, the IFS finds, more deprived areas and those with faster population growth have seen the biggest cuts.
What is more, further cuts planned for 2015-16 will affect the same local authorities that have already been cut, meaning that the same people are being affected over and over again.
The IFS find that cuts to net service spending over this parliament have tended to be larger in areas that were ‘initially more reliant on central government grants to fund spending’; areas that are deemed to have a high level of spending need relative to their local revenue-raising capacity, ie. the most deprived.
David Innes, a Research Economist at IFS and one of the authors of the report, said of the findings:
“English councils – like many government departments in Whitehall – have experienced sharp cuts to their spending power over the last five years. But the size of the cuts has varied a lot across England.
“On the whole, it is more deprived areas, those with lower local revenue-raising capacity, and those that have seen the fastest population growth that have seen the largest cuts to spending per person. Further cuts are likely to come in the next parliament and they could well be focused on many of the same local authorities if the current mechanism for allocating funds is retained.”
London boroughs have seen the largest average spending cuts per person, with an average of 31.4 per cent. In the North East, spending per person was cut by 26.5 per cent, and 25.7 per cent in the North West.
By 2014-15, spending cuts in London had been nearly twice as deep as those in the South East. In the future, the IFS predicts, areas like this with more rapid population growth will find it harder to maintain a steady level of spending per person.
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter
16 Responses to “IFS finds that the most deprived areas have seen the deepest cuts”
damon
Is this the same as I’ve been hearing on the radio this morning that rising populations due to immigration, was leading to cuts of services to the existing populations?
Is it just one of those things that you can spin either way?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11452540/Immigration-leads-to-50-per-cent-cuts-in-council-spending-IFS-finds.html
littleoddsandpieces
Immigration is not the cause of cuts to councils in areas with the poorest working age and poor pensioners.
Immigrants are not all on benefit, but most are serious money, owning businesses and employing staff for generations now and are absolutely key to the staffing of the NHS.
Politics is the cause.
It is said the council grant is reducing from a high of around £14 billion in 2010, to a projected mere around £2 billion by 2020.
Cuts are levied far more outside London and the SE, than in the Midlands and north of England.
The more poor pensioners, disabled and working poor families (97 per cent of the poor), the heavier the cuts to council budgets, which only get worse year on year.
Examples are such as Manchester of around £300 per head cuts, whereas wealthy Windsor had only around £14 per head cuts and Woking a mere around £2 per head cuts to their council budgets.
Universal Credit will have indefinite sanctions, which replace around 6 benefits.
And make the rise in retirement age even worse than it is, to UC benefit claimants by denying state pension payout by UC benefit rules even up to age 73.
The flat rate pension has official forecasts already for those retiring next year, 2016,
as low as £55 per week with no top ups
(currently it is £113.10 per week),
and there will be a huge number of men and women with nil state pension for life,
so totally impoverished pensioners will only massively increase needing council help,
which will not be there.
See why, under my petition, in my WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT section, at:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
Norfolk29
I hate the idea that if they had enough sense they would vote at every election and not have to be in this position where they can be safely ignored by the coalition. Surely there must be some remedy that can be implemented to prevent this happening every time there is a recession.
Mike Stallard
Spending per person…
allocating funds…
spending cuts…
deprived needs…
What kind of people are we talking about here? Are they all infantile? Grown up people ought not to be treated like babies.
Mike Stallard
Spending per person…
allocating funds…
spending cuts…
deprived needs…
What kind of people are we talking about here? Are they all infantile? Grown up people ought not to be treated like babies.