Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Central funding 'falls 26%'


Central government funding to councils will fall by “around 26% over the next four years”, the spending review has confirmed.

While chancellor George Osborne announced councils would receive cuts of 7.1% each year over the four years, a line in the actual document states “on average, central government funding to councils decreases by around 26% over the next four years”.

It goes on to claim that councils’ budgets will decrease by “around 14% once the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections for council tax are taken into account”.

The spending review set local government’s departmental expenditure limit at £28.5bn in 2010-11, falling to £22.9bn by 2014-15, a fall of £5.6bn over four years.

The spending review confirmed the un-ringfencing of all revenue grants “except simplified schools grants and a new public health grant”.

The number of separate core grants will reduce from 90 to fewer than 10 and will see more than £4bn-worth of grants rolled into formula grant.



Readers' comments (2)

  • Mo Baines

    This is an incorrect figure. The chancellor annouced 7.1% each year over four years . That is 28.4% and more if you account for inflation pressures. If this is wrapped with the capital spending it is still not reflective of the money avaialble to local councils since they will have little control over those sums locally.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hi Mo. This is a direct quote from the spending review document. The 28% figure refers to Local Government DEL. I suspect plenty of nuances will uncover themselves over the next couple of days.

  • I suspect it is correct as the calculation is compound and based on a reducing base thus the actual % figure is coorespondinly reduced

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.