Reform says that it will cut the spending of the local authorities it now controls.
I asked ChatGPT to provide a breakdown of English local authority spending. It provided this data for 2024/25 based on government-provided information:
As this analysis then noted:
Key Insights
- Education Services: This is the largest area of expenditure, accounting for 33% of the total. The budget includes significant allocations for early years, primary, and secondary education.
- Adult and Children's Social Care: Combined, these services represent 30% of the total expenditure. The budgets have increased to address rising demand and costs associated with care services.
- Police Services: Allocated 13% of the budget, reflecting commitments to maintain public safety and law enforcement.
- Highways and Transport Services: At 4%, this includes spending on road maintenance, public transport subsidies, and related infrastructure.
- Public Health: Comprising 3% of the budget, this covers initiatives aimed at improving health outcomes and preventing illness.
- Housing Services: Accounting for 2%, this excludes the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and focuses on services like homelessness prevention and housing advice.
- Cultural, Environmental, and Planning Services: Making up 9%, this encompasses libraries, leisure services, environmental health, and planning functions.
- Fire and Rescue Services: Representing 2% of the budget, ensuring emergency response capabilities.
- Central Services: At 3%, this includes corporate and democratic core services, such as finance, legal, and administrative support.
- Other Services: The remaining 1% covers various other functions not categorized above.
This detailed allocation underscores the prioritization of education and social care services within local authority budgets, reflecting statutory obligations and community needs.
So, where will the cuts come from? Clearly, I cannot know. Nor does anyone else. Reform has not said, as far as I can work out, that it will do anything but cut diversity and sustainability officers, of which there are tiny numbers.
In that case, what might be cut? Based on comments made by Farage, Tice and other leading Reform personnel, these seem likely to me:
- Reduced support for migrants in any way possible, even if cruelty and absolute hardship result. Andrea Jenkins, the new mayor of Lincolnshire, says she wants migrants held in tents, not hotels.
- Support for children with autism, ADHD and special educational needs. Farage made it clear recently that he thinks that all of these are overdiagnosed, and he clearly does not really believe that they exist. I expect plans for sweeping cuts.
- Likewise, there will be plans for sweeping reductions in adult social care: the claim will be made that all those of working age should work and that depression, autusm, ADHD and other conditions which are, at present, massive barriers to entry into the workplace for many will be ignored as reasons for supplying care.
- Public health services will be cut. Farage hated everything to do with Covid. They will claim such services are not needed.
- Libraries, parks and sports centres will close. The argument will be that the market should supply such things.
- Support for the arts will disappear. Reform hates anything that they think intellectual. This will include the arts.
- Diversity services will disappear.
- Anything to do with sustainability will go.
Everything of value is, in other words, at risk.
But potholes and bin collections will survive, because they matter to occasional voters.
Reform will do what Trump is seeking to achieve in the USA: they will seek to destroy the organisations over which they have secured power. This is what anti-democrats desire.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The results from the local elections on 1 May 2025 are clearly not “true and accurate.” Across Kent, the numbers simply don’t add up. In many County Council divisions, the number of ballot papers issued doesn’t match the total of votes counted plus spoilt ballots—something has clearly gone wrong. One vote, two votes, even a dozen might not change the winners, but every single vote matters. What this shows is that the counts were not properly checked. We’re told to trust the process, but trust depends on accuracy—and that’s exactly what’s missing here.
Really?
Are you sure?
Absolutely Sure
See – https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/207152/Margate-Declaration-of-Result.pdf
See – https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/207153/Cliftonville-Declaration-of-Result-of-Poll.pdf
See- https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/207002/Notice-of-Declaration-of-Poll-Romney-Marsh.pdf
Just Three examples of many, here in Kent.
I checked the first, there is a very small discrepancy
What is the issue?
I am desperately searching for ideas to improve the future prospects of my grandchildren and their generation. I have recently discovered Gary’s economics U-tube channel and his ideas of reducing inequality. He has appealed for help with developing policies to tax wealth not work, and given your expertise in tax matters I wondered if you would consider cooperating with him?
I am cooperating with him.
He explicitly says that this is a task he cannot do alone, and implies he is overwhelmed, often.
So, I do the analysis here that those who watch his channel, which is quite superficial, need.
If he wants to work with me, I have told him where I am. I can’t do more.
Not related to this election, but this does happen. I live in a town of 7000 voters but there were supposedly 40,000 votes cast in 2019. We had to go to the High Court to get the results overturned and a recount.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-49611803.amp
No, they weren’t cast.
There was a counting error. That is something quite different.
If Reform do try to implement Doge-style cuts in social service support and in environmental protection in the local authorities they now control this will be widely covered by the media( despite some like the Torygraph and Mail being quite supportive of Reform). This will be widely unpopular and generate local dissent. This will rightly damage Reform’s image amongst the electorate, and its current popularity – based on a “plague in all your houses” attitude by voters- will plummet. I do however fear asylum seekers and other refugee immigrants will suffer because of Reform’s rejectionist policies towards multiculturalism.
Not sure about that, There are an awful lot of things that should be widely covered by the media (mainstream) that never make it to a meaningful headline and article or, often, even to publication. And, even when they do, one has to reckon with them being heavily slanted towards the proprietor’s or the state’s ideological, political or economic position.
In the case of local government, I am not sure that it will get national public attention. I suspect that many people will look at the headline, determine that it does not relate to their local council/area of the country and move on, particularly in areas like environment and social services.
And, even if it does make the mainstream media, there will be as many sources likely to hold it up as a good example of shrinking the state and stopping local government waste as there will be of sources opposing it or highlighting the damage done.
Consider the deliberate decimation of our NHS and social services over many years – one might have thought it would have caused an ongoing screaming headlines and that the press would currently have banner headlines bellowing for proper funding of both and and end to the erosion. I haven’t noticed any unified media opposition to it – indeed, I have noticed very little media opposition at all. Moreover, unless the neoliberal Labour triumvirate of Starmer, Reeves and Streeting and their primary advising strategist and hangers-on change Labour PR strategy very markedly, I can’t see any government constraint or messaging being exercised to prevent Reform cuts – more likely promises from Starmer to do even more of the same.
I think the apparent collusion, or lack of criticism to, the starvation of the NHS is that the NHS is ‘not fit for purpose’ and is ‘failing’ (though people seem not to realise that is because of 15 years of continuous starvation and deliberate privatisation).
And the right wing media, which constitutes the vast majority of the mainstream, is signed up to the dismantling of the post-war welfare state/NHS/public services.
No one seems to have publicised MMT in any meaningful way and it is so frustrating to see repeated claims that ‘we can’t afford’ public services. We can’t afford not to have them as people will find out far too late.
The Morning Star has some excellent articles but people associate this publication with some kind of inhumane ‘communism’ and its circulation is woeful.
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/dont-feed-fatcats-how-nhs-became-corporate-health
Why don’t Deform argue for more/better funding for local gov? They have MPs in Wezzie – why not get them on their feet asking LINO tough questions?
Answer – because Deform and Fart-Rage have zero interest in making people’s lives better.
‘Fart-Rage’.
Most excellent.
They will find that most of their money goes on statutory services and that there is nothing left to cut on everything else that would not be hugely unpopular.
Will be interesting times as I suspect very few have the knowledge or experience required and normally administrations change gradually so there are sufficient long term councillors to initiate any newer ones. Or the newer councillors come with public sector work experience in areas such as social care, education etc. I doubt this will be the case for many Reform councillors, but maybe I’m being unfair?
Totally agree Hazel.
Our new Reform mayor has won on his own personal popularity in the main city as an Olympic champion and the cry of “anyone else has got to be better than what we’ve got”
He has zero relevant experience except that “he followed Farage for years and agreed with what he says”.
He is young (well if you think 38 is young) and apparently enthusiastic to “change things” and “give back to my city”.
The only positive is that we did not have council elections so there are some seasoned people around – none of them (openly!) Reform though….
Most councils have been under such financial pressure for so many decades that everything has already been cut to the bone. Anything that is not a statutory obligation has all but disappeared already.
A Reform spokesman I heard have the example of cutting cycle lanes and traffic calming. Presumably in favour of rat-runners speeding thorough residential areas and past primary schools. Dealing with the accidents and injuries will not be included in their budget.
If they cut social care that will heap pressure back on the NHS.
Good luck to the people of Durham, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Kent, etc. For what you are about to receive, may you be truly the thankful.
This would not happen if the turnout was not 30% but more like 60%.
Much to agree with
Prof Murphy
In four out of the six divisions—Romney Marsh, Folkestone East, Elham Valley, and Cheriton, Sandgate & Hythe East—the number of ballot papers issued does not match the total number of votes counted plus rejected ballots. Each of these divisions shows a discrepancy of one vote. While this may seem small (and did not change the outcome), the Electoral Commission clearly states that declared results must be “true and accurate.” These are not.
Every person who voted has a right to have their vote counted and included in the final result.
Crucially, this is not the first time this issue has occurred in Kent.
Tally these discrepancies up across all Counties who voted on 1 May and the number will be far more than the four, that I have found in just one district. Every vote matters.
I think a discrepancy if one is amazingly small
Some people just asked out with the paper instead of spoiling it
There will be network effects sooner or later from these decisions and Reform will lose their credibility but so will Labour who are refusing to carry out flood works in towns and villages that need environmental protection for example.
The truth of the matter is that because of the policy stasis in our politics – well documented on this site – there is unfortunately a lot more suffering to come whether you vote or not.
Voting or not is not the problem.
Voting should be a cause and effect process. Look it up under ‘democracy’. Many of us voted for Labour on the basis of the promise of a change to the Tories; some of us voted for Thatcher on the promise that it might keep our utility bills low through privately owned competition of water, gas and electricity. No one has voted for these political scum to make themselves poorer. But we have become poorer.
None of these promised effects have come about – and that could be a longer list. So we either don’t vote, or we vote for the next bunch of promises (lies?). Sounds like a shit and broken system to me.
The problem is within politics itself (it is not Britain that is broken or its people; it is its politics). British politics is going nowhere, like a fly with one wing, furiously buzzing away in a circle and not understanding why this is the case, buzzing away until exhausted, it expires.
Can this form of politics be justified and defended?
I think not.
Should it be deposed?
Yes.
I think you are right about the areas that will be cut and the deviststing effects it will have.
However it’s win win for Reform. They get to deteriorate local services which makes more people upset with “the government” and therefore more likely to vote Reform next time. There is no incentive for them to try and make things better for people.
The only possible upside is that the inevitable corruption will get highlighted enough to turn voters away, this can be very local and emotive. People will blame central government unless they see money being syphoned away to reform buddies
I find myself surprisingly relaxed about this outcome. Having suffered the chaotic after effects of Brexit for so many years, the timing of these local elections, so early in a new government term, means there is plenty of time for Reform to screw up and show what they truly represent before the next general election. I don’t know much about the internal workings of local government. Perhaps someone here with experience can enlighten? A quorum of representatives of so many different parties reminds me of proportional representation politics. Just because a certain party has the greatest number of councillors (even if, say, only one more than another), does it therefore command decisions, or is there an onus on majority consent among the parties? In other words, can progressives scheme to support each other at the expense of extreme right councillors, as they do on the continent, in order to frustrate their policies?
It’s like parliament
A majority of one gives control.
I don’t really think British democracy was established to provide democratic control – it was established to distribute feudal power across the nobility and constrain the authority of the regent. With a few hiccoughs, It seems largely to have remained a feudal oligarchy as it has been since June 15, 1215, both at local and national level.
Reform will not be able to cut public health budgets, nor transfer this to other council areas, as it is a ring fenced grant from central government with stipulations over how it can be spent.
They can refuse to do it
I think the public health grant funding covers the Local Authority staff costs involved (including.overheads)? If so then little point in not using what central Govt are providing
The ChatGPT analysis is flawed as it overstates the total spend and areas of control LA’s actually have. The reality is that most of LA spend is on children’s and adult social care and councils have already retreated to statutory services. Reform councils will not be able to cut police spend, the dedicated schools grant where most educational spend is, or the public health grant which must be spent on prescribed areas.
Agreed