IFS: Mass immigration can lead up to 50% cuts in council spending

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...IFS-finds.html

Immigration leads to 50 per cent cuts in council spending, IFS finds

Those hit by big influxes of immigrants which fuelled "faster population growth" were among those hit the hardest by the cuts

Immigration is growing, but where has everyone been coming from?

Rising population levels fuelled by large numbers of immigrants has helped to contribute to a near-50 per cent cut in council services in parts of the country, leading forecasters have found.

A study of council spending by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that spending by local authorities in England fell by 20 per cent in the five years since the Coalition was formed.

But there were wide variations, with spending per person falling by between 6 per cent in North East Lincolnshire and 46 per cent in Westminster.

Unprotected budgets for planning departments, libraries, parks, local theatres and leisure centres were hit hardest by the cuts

Those hit by big influxes of immigrants which fuelled "faster population growth" were among those hit the hardest by the cuts.

The IFS warned that council areas which were likely to be hit by large scale immigration were likely to lose out in the future.

It criticised the way councils were funded because it does not “account for differences in population growth across areas”.

It said: “This means that those areas that see the fastest population growth will (other things equal) see the sharpest falls in grants per head.”

The report suggested the Government guarantees the same level of service across councils.

David Innes, one of the authors of the report, said: “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.”

Eight London authorities were likely to be hit hardest, with population growth of up to 10 per cent over the next five years: City of London, Tower Hamlets, Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge, Barnet, Islington, Kingston upon Thames and Newham.

Dave Sparks, the chairman of the Local Government Association, backed the calls for a review of the way councils are funded.

He said: “Local government has worked hard to protect residents from the impact of cuts, but the efficiency savings councils have made since 2010 cannot be made again. It will be vital for any future government to tackle the way councils are funded.

“If the services which underpin people’s daily lives are to survive the next few years, the next parliament must deliver fair funding for local government and give local authorities the freedom required to fund the services local residents and businesses want.”

It emerged on Thursday that average council tax bills are likely to rise £16 for a Band D property or one per cent from the beginning of next month. Council tax for an average band D property is set to rise from £1,467.94 to £1,483.92 from April, according to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Cipfa warned that many councils had missed out on billions in potential funding as a result of council tax freezes imposed by the Coalition.

The Coalition has kept council tax down by offering financial top-ups to authorities who pledge freezes, and by insisting local referendums are held on increases above 2 per cent.

Without these mechanisms, the tax would have gone up by £168, generating enough to fund the entire road maintenance budget for the United Kingdom, it said.

Commenting on the IFS report, Hilary Benn MP, the Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said: "These figures confirm the shocking way in which the most deprived areas have faced the biggest reductions in spending under David Cameron.

"Labour will distribute funding to councils more fairly based on need and end the bias against the poorest communities, giving local authorities longer-term funding settlements so they can plan ahead to best protect the local services on which people rely."

Local Government Minister Kris Hopkins said: "This Government is working to reduce net migration and ensuring the immigration system works in favour of those who want to contribute to our economy.

"We are restricting access to housing, benefits, healthcare, bank accounts and driving licences – whereas the immigration system we inherited was open to widespread abuse and gave little consideration to whether migrants could support themselves or contribute to the UK when they arrived.”

Well blow me down, just confirms what many of us already knew.

But the mainstream media has always claimed that immigration has been a boost for the British economy. In that case, the councils with the most immigrants should be those best able to increase spending on basic services! Or has somebody being lying? You mean immigration has actually been a disaster? Who would have thunk it?

Given net migration is running at over 250,000 a YEAR (a city the size of Hull) is it any surprise that the government can't build enough houses, young Britons can't afford houses and schools and hospitals can't cope. And indeed, why should we cope? Nobody asked for this.

Get the borders controlled like every single other ******* country.

Thoughts?

[The Don]

There has been cuts nationwide with areas with low levels of immigration also receiving cuts.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There has been cuts nationwide with areas with low levels of immigration also receiving cuts.

Yes, and the impact of the cuts are naturally magnified when you have more people moving to an area.

If there's 15,000 people living in one area and it increases to 20,000 because of immigration, that's a huge impact on local services.

Time to get it under control.

[The Don]

Yes, and the impact of the cuts are naturally magnified when you have more people moving to an area.

If there's 15,000 people living in one area and it increases to 20,000 because of immigration, that's a huge impact on local services.

Time to get it under control.

Has any single city seen a 33% increase in population over the past year?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Has any single city seen a 33% increase in population over the past year?

Didn't claim one did, it's an example.

The report lists which parts of the country will be hit hardest, which I have kindly bolded for you too.

[The Don]

Didn't claim one did, it's an example.

The report lists which parts of the country will be hit hardest, which I have kindly bolded for you too.

Yeah, i've just been reading the report. Generally the cuts have been happening more in poorer areas which also tend to be the areas with the highest levels of immigrants

The spending power of local authorities in England has been cut substantially
during this parliament. We find that local authorities’ spending per person
has been cut by 23.4% in real terms between 2009–10 and 2014–15, using a
comparable definition of net spending on services over time by single-tier and
county councils.
However, the size of cuts varied markedly across the country – Westminster
saw a cut of 46.3%, while North East Lincolnshire experienced a cut of 6.2%.
On the whole, more deprived areas and those that saw faster population
growth have seen larger cuts.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/public...government.pdf

So whilst immigration is a factor in the overall magnitude of the cuts, immigration itself isn't the cause of these cuts as your title "IFS: Mass immigration can lead up to 50% cuts in council spending" leads people to believe as
without immigration there would still be cuts in spending, just not as much.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah, i've just been reading the report. Generally the cuts have been happening more in poorer areas which also tend to be the areas with the highest levels of immigrants


http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/public...government.pdf

So whilst immigration is a factor in the overall magnitude of the cuts, immigration itself isn't the cause of these cuts as your title "IFS: Mass immigration can lead up to 50% cuts in council spending" leads people to believe as
without immigration there would still be cuts in spending, just not as much.

Of course there would still be cuts, local spending is being cut back - and rightly in my opinion. But population increase via immigration is an issue and it backs up the argument that uncontrolled borders hurt the poorest in our country which is why it needs to be brought under control.

[The Don]

Of course there would still be cuts, local spending is being cut back - and rightly in my opinion. But population increase via immigration is an issue and it backs up the argument that uncontrolled borders hurt the poorest in our country which is why it needs to be brought under control.

Well the government was going to cut benefits to the poorest anyway, so the governments cuts are hurting the poor not the immigrants.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well the government was going to cut benefits to the poorest anyway, so the governments cuts are hurting the poor not the immigrants.

Both hurt the poorest, but they're both different issues.

One is isn't controllable, the other is.

[AgnesIO]

Basically, what we can work out from this, is that the title is incredibly dramatic, and not actually true.

Similarly; "Killing a mouse can lead to their extinction". Technically, yes, it can. Realistically, it isn't going to happen.