Britain's ten poorest areas face biggest council cuts - as rich Tory authorities get budget rises

Sassy wrote:Andy, being a tit as normal.   No change there then.

Sassy wrote:No need for an argument, what is happening is obviously wrong and Pickles should be pickled, boiled in vinegar, slowly.   I expect a huge row about this and am waiting to see what happens.

Catman wrote:
Fat fucking Tory   that stole all the fucking pies!

Communities Secretary: Eric Pickles
Getty

Britain's 10 worst-off areas will suffer the biggest council cuts – as some rich Tory authorities get budget rises, research shows.

Deprived boroughs in Liverpool, London, Manchester and Middlesbrough, will lose ten times more from the government than the ten richest.

The reason lies in funding formulas used by the Tory-led Government which hits Labour-held areas hardest.

These local authorities will have their budgets slashed by an average 16.9% during this Parliament, but Tory-controlled councils will lose just 6.6% and Lib Dem councils, 7.8%.

But Communities Secretary Eric Pickles is hitting worst-off areas harder.

Liverpool will lose 27.1% in funding from 2010-15, Hackney in London, 27%, Manchester City Council, 26%, Middlesbrough, 24% and Birmingham, 23.3%.

But Tory-run Wokingham, one of the richest areas in England, will get a 1.1% rise and Education Secretary Michael Gove’s council of Surrey Heath will receive a 0.9% increase in funding.

Other councils serving the seats of Cabinet ministers will also do well.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s local council Epsom and Ewell will enjoy a 3% increase, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s Waverley council is getting a 1.3% rise and Defence Secretary Philip Hammond’s Runnymede, 0.6%.

On average councils in the ten most deprived areas will have cuts of 25% but councils in the ten richest areas will only lose 2.5%, according to the figures compiled by Labour and Newcastle City Council.

Council leaders are already cutting libraries, road maintenance and youth clubs and will struggle to maintain vital services such as social care.

And theres that sanctimonious idiot didge saying kids dont need computers...let em use the library.....and his masters are forcing their closure....Totally divorced from reality, him and his masters



And the harsh spending cuts are being felt in cities with the most children living in poverty.

A worrying 38% of kids in Manchester live below the breadline – 33% in Liverpool. In Wokingham just 9% of children are living in poverty.

Shadow Communities Secretary Hilary Benn said: “These figures are shocking. They show the direct impact of David Cameron and Eric Pickles’s unfair policies.

"The Government claims that those with the broadest shoulders must bear the biggest burden, but they are doing the exact opposite and hitting the poorest communities hardest.”

“One Nation Labour will ensure that future funding of vital council services is done on the basis of need.”

But local Government Minister Brandon Lewis claimed: “The coalition government has delivered a fair settlement to every part of the country - north and south, rural and urban, metropolitan and shire.”

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/council-cuts-britains-ten-poorest-3091450#ixzz2rqW4kX4s
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


  ....Get the Tory bastards out now!

BigAndy9 wrote:Apparently I've heard that rich people have more expensive items in their houses than poor people.

What do you say about that?

Should we smash their doors down, rob them and rape their children?

Yeah, that's what you want isn't it?  You want everything!

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Apparently I've heard that rich people have more expensive items in their houses than poor people.

What do you say about that?

Should we smash their doors down, rob them and rape their children?

Yeah, that's what you want isn't it?  You want everything!

When you say 'we' I take it you mean you and some people that you know.

Not a good idea Andy because you could end up in the clink.

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Apparently I've heard that rich people have more expensive items in their houses than poor people.

What do you say about that?

Should we smash their doors down, rob them and rape their children?

Yeah, that's what you want isn't it?  You want everything!

When you say 'we' I take it you mean you and some people that you know.

Not a good idea Andy because you could end up in the clink.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Apparently I've heard that rich people have more expensive items in their houses than poor people.

What do you say about that?

Should we smash their doors down, rob them and rape their children?

Yeah, that's what you want isn't it?  You want everything!

When you say 'we' I take it you mean you and some people that you know.

Not a good idea Andy because you could end up in the clink.

Cracking jokes is ok, as long as you also put your real point across Iron.

Otherwise it looks like you have no ideas.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Apparently I've heard that rich people have more expensive items in their houses than poor people.

What do you say about that?

Should we smash their doors down, rob them and rape their children?

Yeah, that's what you want isn't it?  You want everything!

When you say 'we' I take it you mean you and some people that you know.

Not a good idea Andy because you could end up in the clink.

I would have thought a WEE MAN , would have understood the context of WE in that.




    

Irn Bru wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:





 



I would have thought a WEE MAN , would have understood the context of WE in that.




    

So what was the context kaka laddie?

Sassy wrote:No need for an argument, what is happening is obviously wrong and Pickles should be pickled, boiled in vinegar, slowly.   I expect a huge row about this and am waiting to see what happens.

Irn Bru wrote:Typical bloody Tories. Liars, cheats and professional robbers. No doubt the cap doffers and forelock tuggers will be along shortly to defend this pathetic bunch of clowns who are in government.

Get them out.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Sassy wrote:No need for an argument, what is happening is obviously wrong and Pickles should be pickled, boiled in vinegar, slowly.   I expect a huge row about this and am waiting to see what happens.

Why is it obviously wrong and why is there no need for an argument?

Labour poured central grant resources into mainly Labour controlled county, borough and district authorities throughout their period in office while systematically cutting resources for rural - and  primarily Tory and Lib Dem controlled - councils.

My own district council was forced to impose above inflation council tax rises almost every year between 1997 and 2010 because the already pitifully low central grant was cut time and time again.

In 2010 my council tax, for a three bedroomed house in a village with no public transport, no shop, a tiny oversubscribed primary school and no facilities for either young people or old folk and, in the case of my own part of the village, not even mains drainage was just a few quid under £2,500 a year.

We are still woefully deprived so far as services are concerned, but at least our council tax has been frozen for the past three years.

It's high time some of the big spending and profligate Labour local authorities with chief executives and departmental directors on telephone number salaries and councillors picking up in "allowances" amounting to as much as the national average wage were reigned in.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Why is it obviously wrong and why is there no need for an argument?

Labour poured central grant resources into mainly Labour controlled county, borough and district authorities throughout their period in office while systematically cutting resources for rural - and  primarily Tory and Lib Dem controlled - councils.

My own district council was forced to impose above inflation council tax rises almost every year between 1997 and 2010 because the already pitifully low central grant was cut time and time again.

In 2010 my council tax, for a three bedroomed house in a village with no public transport, no shop, a tiny oversubscribed primary school and no facilities for either young people or old folk and, in the case of my own part of the village, not even mains drainage was just a few quid under £2,500 a year.

We are still woefully deprived so far as services are concerned, but at least our council tax has been frozen for the past three years.

It's high time some of the big spending and profligate Labour local authorities with chief executives and departmental directors on telephone number salaries and councillors picking up in "allowances" amounting to as much as the national average wage were reigned in.

No that is just plain wrong Fred. Council tax funds were distributed centrally by the DCLG and it was each local authority that set council tax rates during Labour's term in office not central government. And the top 5 council tax rises in the period were actually in Tory controlled local authorities. Perhaps you were just unlucky to have been in a Tory controlled local authority and they were spinning you a tale that it was all Labour's fault. They're atually quite good at that.

Anyway, here's the data from the DCLG as verification of who actually stuck most people 'in it'.

Sassy wrote:Now, I wonder what excuse they are going to come up with for this mean spirited, obvious, attack on certain regions.

Sassy wrote:Andy, being a tit as normal.   No change there then.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Why is it obviously wrong and why is there no need for an argument?

Labour poured central grant resources into mainly Labour controlled county, borough and district authorities throughout their period in office while systematically cutting resources for rural - and  primarily Tory and Lib Dem controlled - councils.

My own district council was forced to impose above inflation council tax rises almost every year between 1997 and 2010 because the already pitifully low central grant was cut time and time again.

In 2010 my council tax, for a three bedroomed house in a village with no public transport, no shop, a tiny oversubscribed primary school and no facilities for either young people or old folk and, in the case of my own part of the village, not even mains drainage was just a few quid under £2,500 a year.

We are still woefully deprived so far as services are concerned, but at least our council tax has been frozen for the past three years.

It's high time some of the big spending and profligate Labour local authorities with chief executives and departmental directors on telephone number salaries and councillors picking up in "allowances" amounting to as much as the national average wage were reigned in.

No that is just plain wrong Fred. Council tax funds were distributed centrally by the DCLG and it was each local authority that set council tax rates during Labour's term in office not central government. And the top 5 council tax rises in the period were actually in Tory controlled local authorities. Perhaps you were just unlucky to have been in a Tory controlled local authority and they were spinning you a tale that it was all Labour's fault. They're atually quite good at that.

Anyway, here's the data from the DCLG as verification of who actually stuck most people 'in it'.

I never said that central government set council tax rates - everyone knows that those are set by the local authorities themselves.

However, the annual individual council tax rate levied is determined largely by the individual award of central grant; i.e. the amount of money which central government apportions to each local authority.

In the case of my own local authority, a largely rural district council, the central grant was cut almost every year by the government of the day between 1997 and April 2010

That government was Labour. My council is Tory controlled. As the Americans say, go figure.

My local council made at least five appeals during the period against the reduction of central grant, on each occasion citing increases that had been awarded to Labour-controlled county, borough and district councils, primarily in northern England, where Labour were either in overall control or had control in partnership with the Lib Dems

In other words Tory, mainly rural councils, were being discriminated against on political grounds.

Since they were obviously legally obliged to incur expenditure in accordance with central (Labour) government policies, such as mandatory requirements in such fields as education, policing, fire and rescue, social services, etc., etc., they had no alternative to raise their annual council tax at above the rate of inflation not only to meet current increases but to make up for the reduction in their individual central grant.

I am sure that those top five rate-charging Tory-controlled councils also set their rates in accordance with the amount which they received in central government grant and the additional costs that they were being forced to incur; I happen to know that the Cambridgeshire council you mention did so having been in exactly the same position of my own local authority.

The "truth", as Sassy puts it, is that such councils were forced to increase the burden on their ratepayers as a direct result of the Labour government's decision to cut their grant and to apportion more of the CG budget to their own political strongholds...and Labour politicians then exploited those increases for party political advantage by using them as "evidence" of Tory local government profligacy and waste.

It hardly surprises me that you should be so keen to follow their lead.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Typical bloody Tories. Liars, cheats and professional robbers. No doubt the cap doffers and forelock tuggers will be along shortly to defend this pathetic bunch of clowns who are in government.

Get them out.

"Liars, cheats and professional robbers"? That sounds to me more like the curriculem vitae of the ministers and governing party MPs who spent between 1997 and 2010 wrecking the country and its economy.

No doubt the brainwashed loony Left will be along shortly to defend the pathetic bunch of clowns who are in Opposition.

Sassy wrote:My, all those facts to back up your ramblings are astonishing Drinky lol   

Clarkson wrote:Except baboons that Labour did favour its strongholds and went beyond allowances that were dictated by the levels of poverty in boroughs.

That isn't made up I is a fact that has been reported throughout Labours misrule and was covered many time by the BBC.

Your ability to be in denial is legendary so no surprise there.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I never said that central government set council tax rates - everyone knows that those are set by the local authorities themselves.

However, the annual individual council tax rate levied is determined largely by the individual award of central grant; i.e. the amount of money which central government apportions to each local authority.

In the case of my own local authority, a largely rural district council, the central grant was cut almost every year by the government of the day between 1997 and April 2010

That government was Labour. My council is Tory controlled. As the Americans say, go figure.

My local council made at least five appeals during the period against the reduction of central grant, on each occasion citing increases that had been awarded to Labour-controlled county, borough and district councils, primarily in northern England, where Labour were either in overall control or had control in partnership with the Lib Dems

In other words Tory, mainly rural councils, were being discriminated against on political grounds.

Since they were obviously legally obliged to incur expenditure in accordance with central (Labour) government policies, such as mandatory requirements in such fields as education, policing, fire and rescue, social services, etc., etc., they had no alternative to raise their annual council tax at above the rate of inflation not only to meet current increases but to make up for the reduction in their individual central grant.

I am sure that those top five rate-charging Tory-controlled councils also set their rates in accordance with the amount which they received in central government grant and the additional costs that they were being forced to incur; I happen to know that the Cambridgeshire council you mention did so having been in exactly the same position of my own local authority.

The "truth", as Sassy puts it, is that such councils were forced to increase the burden on their ratepayers as a direct result of the Labour government's decision to cut their grant and to apportion more of the CG budget to their own political strongholds...and Labour politicians then exploited those increases for party political advantage by using them as "evidence" of Tory local government profligacy and waste.

It hardly surprises me that you should be so keen to follow their lead.

Nope, that is completely wrong as well. If you are trying to tell me that Labour starved Tory controlled local authorities of central government funding then I'm going to have to ask you to produce the exact figures from a reputable source that confirms that. Not one local authority ever received a reduction in their central funding which grew on average by around 45% over the period that Labour were in office.

From The Institute of Fiscal Studies:

Most industrial countries have increased public spending as a share of national income since 1997. But between 1997 and 2007 prior to the financial crisis the UK had the 2nd largest increase in spending as a share of national income out of 28 industrial countries for which we have comparable data. Over the period from 1997 to 2010 including the crisis the UK had the largest increase. This moved the UK from having the 22nd largest proportion of national income spent publically in 1997 to having the 6th largest proportion spent publically in 2010.

Spending on public services has increased by an average of 4.4% a year in real terms under Labour, significantly faster than the 0.7% a year average seen under the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997. This is largely due to increases in spending on the NHS, education and transport.

Since 2000 01 public investment spending has increased particularly sharply and is
now at levels not seen since the mid to late 1970s. Despite large increases in the generosity of benefits for lower income families with children and lower income pensioners social security spending has grown less quickly than it did under the Conservatives

Irn Bru wrote:The next policy I'm expecting from Duncan Smith and that clown that hides behind trees, Jeremy Hunt, is that they are to increase NHS spending to cover the mandatory fitting of gastrict bands on poor and low paid people so that they don't eat as much thus crushing Labour's attacks that there is a cost of living crisis.

Sorted

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I never said that central government set council tax rates - everyone knows that those are set by the local authorities themselves.

However, the annual individual council tax rate levied is determined largely by the individual award of central grant; i.e. the amount of money which central government apportions to each local authority.

In the case of my own local authority, a largely rural district council, the central grant was cut almost every year by the government of the day between 1997 and April 2010

That government was Labour. My council is Tory controlled. As the Americans say, go figure.

My local council made at least five appeals during the period against the reduction of central grant, on each occasion citing increases that had been awarded to Labour-controlled county, borough and district councils, primarily in northern England, where Labour were either in overall control or had control in partnership with the Lib Dems

In other words Tory, mainly rural councils, were being discriminated against on political grounds.

Since they were obviously legally obliged to incur expenditure in accordance with central (Labour) government policies, such as mandatory requirements in such fields as education, policing, fire and rescue, social services, etc., etc., they had no alternative to raise their annual council tax at above the rate of inflation not only to meet current increases but to make up for the reduction in their individual central grant.

I am sure that those top five rate-charging Tory-controlled councils also set their rates in accordance with the amount which they received in central government grant and the additional costs that they were being forced to incur; I happen to know that the Cambridgeshire council you mention did so having been in exactly the same position of my own local authority.

The "truth", as Sassy puts it, is that such councils were forced to increase the burden on their ratepayers as a direct result of the Labour government's decision to cut their grant and to apportion more of the CG budget to their own political strongholds...and Labour politicians then exploited those increases for party political advantage by using them as "evidence" of Tory local government profligacy and waste.

It hardly surprises me that you should be so keen to follow their lead.

Nope, that is completely wrong as well. If you are trying to tell me that Labour starved Tory controlled local authorities of central government funding then I'm going to have to ask you to produce the exact figures from a reputable source that confirms that. Not one local authority ever received a reduction in their central funding which grew on average by around 45% over the period that Labour were in office.

From The Institute of Fiscal Studies:

Most industrial countries have increased public spending as a share of national income since 1997. But between 1997 and 2007 prior to the financial crisis the UK had the 2nd largest increase in spending as a share of national income out of 28 industrial countries for which we have comparable data. Over the period from 1997 to 2010 including the crisis the UK had the largest increase. This moved the UK from having the 22nd largest proportion of national income spent publically in 1997 to having the 6th largest proportion spent publically in 2010.

Spending on public services has increased by an average of 4.4% a year in real terms under Labour, significantly faster than the 0.7% a year average seen under the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997. This is largely due to increases in spending on the NHS, education and transport.

Since 2000 01 public investment spending has increased particularly sharply and is
now at levels not seen since the mid to late 1970s. Despite large increases in the generosity of benefits for lower income families with children and lower income pensioners social security spending has grown less quickly than it did under the Conservatives

I am unsure as to why you should think that your chosen extract from the Institute for Fiscal Studies should be at all relevant in this context as it refers to "public spending as a share of national income"; overall "spending on public services" and "public investment spending."

Capital Grant is only a part of the government's overall public spending programme and may well have increased  during the period 1997 to 2010 as part of the entire national budget; indeed, given prevailing inflation rates it would be amazing had it not increased.

The point of discussion here, however, is how CG was apportioned between local authorities, not how much of it was paid out nationally.

And I maintain, having served as a councillor for part of the period in question, that Capital Grant to rural local authorities such as my own was reduced in real terms (I admit to having omitted to use the words "in real terms" - sorry) while they were being increased in real terms, and in some instances significantly, to  many local authorities in the Labour heartlands. The North East of England was particularly favoured, as I recall.

Incidentally, could you clarify whether that extract which you have used is an unedited and accurate quotation of the relevant IFS report, or whether it appears in that form in a Labour briefing paper.

I'm in no way doubting your word, you'll understand, but the IFS staunchly maintains that it is politically independent, yet some parts of your extract clearly indicate a  stance supportive of Labour in comparison to the Conservatives.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

"Liars, cheats and professional robbers"? That sounds to me more like the curriculem vitae of the ministers and governing party MPs who spent between 1997 and 2010 wrecking the country and its economy.

No doubt the brainwashed loony Left will be along shortly to defend the pathetic bunch of clowns who are in Opposition.

I think that you will find that is all just Tory propaganda. Let me enlighten you:

Speech by David Cameron March 2009
In his address to the British Chambers of Commerce in Birmingham, Mr Cameron said the party would have to make difficult decisions about tax and spending ahead of the next election. He admitted that all parties had signed up to a "cosy economic consensus" that was misguided.

But he also acknowledged that the current difficulties were not caused solely by the actions of the Labour government since 1997 but longer-term weaknesses in the economy.

He added: "It is only about being honest about the past that we can get things right for the future."

Mr Cameron accused the Prime Minister of failing to recognise how deep Britain's economic troubles went or even acknowledging that any of them are "home grown".

"He thinks a fundamentally sound economy has been hit by an external financial juggernaut, that Britain is the innocent victim of a banking crisis that 'came from America', and that all we need to do is apply a few sticking plasters to an otherwise healthy body," Mr Cameron said.

But he added: "If I'm honest, I have to admit that we, the Conservative Party, didn't see this as early as we could have."

In a striking admission, Mr Cameron said not all of the present problems had been created since Labour came to power almost 12 years ago. "If we're honest we must recognise that some of our economic difficulties today relate not only to what has happened in the last ten years, but also to fundamental weaknesses that have been there for decades," he said.

These remarks could upset Tory traditionalists who will see it as a partial apology for Thatcherite policies.

Speech by Mervyn King – Governor of the Bank of England – September 2010
Recent times have indeed been turbulent. After a decade and a half of stability, with rising employment and living standards, came the crisis and recession - the biggest economic upheaval since the Great Depression. Before the crisis, steady growth with low inflation and high employment was in our grasp. We let it slip - we, that is, in the financial sector and as policy-makers - not your members nor the many businesses and organisations around the country which employ them. And although the causes of the crisis may have been rooted in the financial sector, the consequences are affecting everyone, and will continue to do so for years to come.
Thankfully, the costs of the crisis have been smaller than those of the Great Depression. But only because we learnt from that experience. An unprecedented degree of policy stimulus, here and abroad, prevented another world slump. Even so, around a million more people in Britain are out of work than before the crisis. Many, especially the young unemployed, have had their futures blighted.

From the Institute of Fiscal Studies 2010 The public finances: 1997 to 2010
•
Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in  2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven ears of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red.
•
By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives. And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997–98 to 2006-07


And remember that Cameron and Osborne had pledged to match and increase Labour's public spending plans and deregulate the financial sector. They also called for the government to match the economic model in Ireland. Just as well they weren't in power then - phew!!!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

"Liars, cheats and professional robbers"? That sounds to me more like the curriculem vitae of the ministers and governing party MPs who spent between 1997 and 2010 wrecking the country and its economy.

No doubt the brainwashed loony Left will be along shortly to defend the pathetic bunch of clowns who are in Opposition.

I think that you will find that is all just Tory propaganda. Let me enlighten you:

Speech by David Cameron March 2009
In his address to the British Chambers of Commerce in Birmingham, Mr Cameron said the party would have to make difficult decisions about tax and spending ahead of the next election. He admitted that all parties had signed up to a "cosy economic consensus" that was misguided.

But he also acknowledged that the current difficulties were not caused solely by the actions of the Labour government since 1997 but longer-term weaknesses in the economy.

He added: "It is only about being honest about the past that we can get things right for the future."

Mr Cameron accused the Prime Minister of failing to recognise how deep Britain's economic troubles went or even acknowledging that any of them are "home grown".

"He thinks a fundamentally sound economy has been hit by an external financial juggernaut, that Britain is the innocent victim of a banking crisis that 'came from America', and that all we need to do is apply a few sticking plasters to an otherwise healthy body," Mr Cameron said.

But he added: "If I'm honest, I have to admit that we, the Conservative Party, didn't see this as early as we could have."

In a striking admission, Mr Cameron said not all of the present problems had been created since Labour came to power almost 12 years ago. "If we're honest we must recognise that some of our economic difficulties today relate not only to what has happened in the last ten years, but also to fundamental weaknesses that have been there for decades," he said.

These remarks could upset Tory traditionalists who will see it as a partial apology for Thatcherite policies.

Speech by Mervyn King – Governor of the Bank of England – September 2010
Recent times have indeed been turbulent. After a decade and a half of stability, with rising employment and living standards, came the crisis and recession - the biggest economic upheaval since the Great Depression. Before the crisis, steady growth with low inflation and high employment was in our grasp. We let it slip - we, that is, in the financial sector and as policy-makers - not your members nor the many businesses and organisations around the country which employ them. And although the causes of the crisis may have been rooted in the financial sector, the consequences are affecting everyone, and will continue to do so for years to come.
Thankfully, the costs of the crisis have been smaller than those of the Great Depression. But only because we learnt from that experience. An unprecedented degree of policy stimulus, here and abroad, prevented another world slump. Even so, around a million more people in Britain are out of work than before the crisis. Many, especially the young unemployed, have had their futures blighted.

From the Institute of Fiscal Studies 2010 The public finances: 1997 to 2010
•
Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in  2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven ears of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red.
•
By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives. And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997–98 to 2006-07


And remember that Cameron and Osborne had pledged to match and increase Labour's public spending plans and deregulate the financial sector. They also called for the government to match the economic model in Ireland. Just as well they weren't in power then - phew!!!

Blair, Campbell, Whelan, MacBride, MacShane, Moran, Uddin, Chayton, Moreley, Illsley, Devine............................

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I am unsure as to why you should think that your chosen extract from the Institute for Fiscal Studies should be at all relevant in this context as it refers to "public spending as a share of national income"; overall "spending on public services" and "public investment spending."

Capital Grant is only a part of the government's overall public spending programme and may well have increased  during the period 1997 to 2010 as part of the entire national budget; indeed, given prevailing inflation rates it would be amazing had it not increased.

The point of discussion here, however, is how CG was apportioned between local authorities, not how much of it was paid out nationally.

And I maintain, having served as a councillor for part of the period in question, that Capital Grant to rural local authorities such as my own was reduced in real terms (I admit to having omitted to use the words "in real terms" - sorry) while they were being increased in real terms, and in some instances significantly, to  many local authorities in the Labour heartlands. The North East of England was particularly favoured, as I recall.

Incidentally, could you clarify whether that extract which you have used is an unedited and accurate quotation of the relevant IFS report, or whether it appears in that form in a Labour briefing paper.

I'm in no way doubting your word, you'll understand, but the IFS staunchly maintains that it is politically independent, yet some parts of your extract clearly indicate a  stance supportive of Labour in comparison to the Conservatives.

That extract is straight from the IFS 2010 election briefing which is available on their website.

Have you got the figures for the overall funding from central government that was made available to the region that you claim received a cut in their funding? Reliable source please.