[Closed] Government cuts to local authority budgets

Agree on the wider debate ninfan, hence my early post

teamhurtmore - Member
There needs to be complete clarity on

1. What are the targets for the fiscal balance and level of public debt
2. What will be the relationship between tax increases and spending cuts to achieve this

Both parties have work to do to explain this in simple terms.
POSTED 2 DAYS AGO #

As this thread shows, it's too easy to jump to conclusion about how different parties will and do deal with this. The reality is very different from the rhetoric. But ninfan, the Tories are as bad especially the tax cuts stuff. The maths doesn't work and they know it. So if they want to claim tax cuts, they need to be honest about the other side of the equation. Otherwise they end up looking like Alex Salmond and we have all had enough of that!

There is some interesting work in this area including a review by the LSE which looks at London LAs under different party leadership, from which they conclude that

All the boroughs had made very substantial efforts to protect front line services whereverpossible and limit the impacts on residents with the greatest needs. The majority of savings had been made through ‘efficiencies’ – reducing costs without immediate impacts on service delivery

THM, I think one interesting example is DVLA

Pretty massive investment in computerisation, reorganisation and job losses, evil cuts, strikes etc.

Result however has been a 1/3 cut in the cost of driving licence to the public,

Of course similar savings in the cost of administering the road fund licence etc.

Road tax is just a huge lost opportunity. Scrap it. Add a penny to fuel duty. I don't doubt there's similar endless pointless and petty crap that can just be scrapped.

Where have I said that services haven't been cut?

LAs in fact should be congratulated for managing such a stark reduction in their funding and for not letting this affect services so far.

I'm lost

Indeed.... should be an interesting reply. i reckon on woosh or somethign equally pervasive as an explanation.
TBH its becoming increasingly harder to tell what he means on here and what he does for sport/reaction.

PS I Just thought i would see what followed his "conclusion" and it agreed that cuts had happened to services as we had argued

• Councils have been making strenuous efforts to make large savings without cutting front line services, and to protect services for those who need them most. Most savings have come through efficiencies, the sorts of savings which Councils have argued are neither detrimental to, nor noticeable at, the frontline.
• However, Councils have, reluctantly, had to reduce their own role in the provision of discretionary services. More of these services are being delivered by voluntary and community sector partners, so the landscape of local service provision has seen some change
•A focus on the most in need, seen in greater targeting of services, could also further fuel rising demand, as lower level need goes unaddressed.
• Council officers and Members are concerned that the ‘limits of efficiency’ have been reached, and there is little scope for further large?scale savings without significant effects on frontline services.

I am going for "yawn" 😆

you are a wise man Pigface
I agree these "debates" are a bit yawny to be fair
We may as well go i dont like you or your politics and then all flounce off so i will lead the campaign

FLOUNCES

Phew.

AA as the reports cited suggest, quantity and quality are not the same things.

So the closed libraries havent been missed? I see.

So you ignored the quote that showed that you had indeed said the thing you denied saying in order to just play me
I hold you in much higher regard now and I am as hurt as am I surprised 😀

Re flounces 😛

Good job there are no professional scientists in the house.

AA, here's another view

Several studies have explored these strategies since the cuts took hold in 2010/11. On the whole, somewhat surprisingly given the scale of the funding reductions, these have shown councils largely managing (by their own account) to balance budgets without major loss of frontline services nor serious impacts on service quality.

Quantity versus quality really isn't that hard.

I'm sure theres a discussion in here somewhere.

THM, haven't you previously argued that there haven't actually been any major cuts yet? If you believe that then how can a study on the effects since 2010/11 show us anything useful?

major loss of frontline services

Would that be one of those caveats I was talking about earlier.

Good job there are no professional scientists in the house.

You have lost me again. Is this some kind of personal dig again?

Yes that would be one as would Largely managing and serious impact

Is this some kind of personal dig again?

I'm sure theres a discussion in here somewhere.

grum - Member
THM, haven't you previously argued that there haven't actually been any major cuts yet? If you believe that then how can a study on the effects since 2010/11 show us anything useful?

Very significant cuts in funding - hence question about efficiencies and how LAs have reacted
Varied cuts in quantity of some services - especially those not directed at low income groups. Look where the real hits have come
Must independent studies conclude that overall quality of services has largely been maintained

So studies are indeed very useful including the LSE one that shows how LAs controlled by different parties have coped. Avoids the facile party political polarisation that can define these kinds of debates.

But the real issue remains - big further cuts are coming irrespective of who wins the election and we need to understand CLEARLY how each party is going to deliver them.