Liverpool council reaction to local government settlement: 'biggest cuts since 1945'
Liverpool council leader Joe Anderson tonight has branded the local government settlement financial trickery that will see the biggest cuts in services since 1945.
"As a result, many roads will go unrepaired, potholes unfixed and streets unswept. Youth clubs will close and libraries will shut," he says.
Alongside his deputy Paul Brant the council has gone on the offensive this evening.
One contact reckons it is the best crafted council statement he's seen in a long time.
Here is the full statements from the pair:
Cllr Anderson said: "The cuts announced by Eric Pickles today mean Liverpool will be more than ã100 million worse off over the next two years and is facing the biggest cuts in its services since 1945.
ÃÂ
"The coalition government's cuts will hit every family in Liverpool hard. We have been hit harder than every other city - despite having some of the most pressing needs in the country.
ÃÂ
"Mr Pickles is playing fast and loose with his figures - and he's playing fast and loose with life-and-death services and people's lives.
ÃÂ
"His claim that Liverpool faces cuts of no more than 8.9 per cent is nothing more than financial trickery. The reality is that it will be much higher as the government figures include cash raised locally from council tax, money we receive for health services and other special grants.
ÃÂ
"The coalition's cuts will have a severe impact on our ability to attract new jobs and investment to the city. Today will go down as a very bleak day for Liverpool.
ÃÂ
"As a result, many roads will go unrepaired, potholes unfixed and streets unswept. Youth clubs will close and libraries will shut.âšâÂÅ¡"The government's own figures prove that those councils with the greatest needs - including Liverpool - will lose out most from the government's decisions on grants and council tax, while the most prosperous areas will be even be better off.
ÃÂ
"Cameron's claims of fairness and 'we're all in it together' ring hollow in Liverpool tonight."
ÃÂ
Cllr Brant, who has responsibility for finances, said: "Based on the government's own figures, Liverpool City Council will be at least ã57 million worse off next year and an extra ã40 million poorer in 2012/13. But the devil is in the detail. We are examining the figures line by line and it is likely they will be even worse than the headlines show. The government is taking away a lot of specific grants which help us tackle deprivation. We have lost ã11 million from our Supporting People grant which is spent on helping the disabled, frail and elderly - the most vulnerable people in the city.
ÃÂ
"Liverpool now faces some extremely tough choices about which services we can keep on running. These are severe cuts and will be very difficult for thousands of people who use the services the council provides; from keeping children safe to making sure that streets are clean.
ÃÂ
"While Eric Pickles has announced cuts next year for Liverpool of 8.9 per cent, in reality they will be much worse. That is because the amount of special grants given to urban areas - like Liverpool - has been cut far more than the grants given to the better-off Shires.
ÃÂ
"It will mean hundreds of job losses and every service we provide will be affected.
ÃÂ
"Today's cuts are on top of the 24 new schools axed (ã350 million cut from Building Schools for the Future), the 7,000 homes left unrepaired (ã8 million cut from Housing Renewal) 800 police officers are also being cut in Merseyside.
ÃÂ
"We will, as a council, make every human effort possible to try and mitigate the effect of the cuts on the most needy and vulnerable. We have already saved millions by cutting out waste, improving efficiency, reducing senior management jobs and cutting the pay of top staff.
ÃÂ
"But the reality is that the scale of the government's cuts mean every neighbourhood, every street and every family in the city will be affected in some way."
4 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
OK Paul and Joe tell us what would have happened under Labour. The Government has taken the same cut in capital nationally as Labour proposed last year (40%) and has cut revenue spending by ã83 billion where Labour said they would have cut by ã72 billion. Labour has no credibility unless it comes clean about what it would have done instead to deal with the crisis in public finance that they largely created.
Richard Kemp raises valid points by asking the question what would you have done, and we know the answers, they would have continued to bail out and protect the millionaire bankers, property speculators and gamblers by making the poorest people pay for their greed, just like the Coalition has done. Unfortunately Richard loses his own credibility by saying Labour created the crisis in public finance and talks down to the electorate who are becoming increasingly aware that our elected representatives are simply a tool and servant of the financial oligarchy who really run the world economy,who will gamble away your job, your home, your future to satisfy their own lust for wealth. So Labour are as much to blame as every other government of every other country affected by the self serving greed of international banking and finance corporations. The difference is that the Conservatives and now the Liberal Democrats, thanks to Clegg's inflated ego, self importance, and complete sickening betrayal of voters who trusted him and the Liberal Democrats, are less shy about who they are in bed with.
Perhaps Cllr Richard Kemp would like to explain, as a Liverpool councillor no less, why his Coalition government has cut Liverpool's budget by 8.9% this coming year but cut the budget of wealthy Richmond-on-Thames by less than 1%. Long before he demands alternatives from Labour, he needs to justify this gross unfairness. What Cllrs Anderson & Brant has to propose is up to them. But I have a sneaking suspicion their alternative solution might start from the same question. Next May, wise voters will be wanting an answer too.
We all know Labour would have made cuts - that was as clear as day before the election and
Spin it any Liberal way you want councillor Kemp - but the facts are clear - THEY ARE the most severe cuts since 1945, Services will be reduced - and will hit hardest at the most vulnerable.-and you cant escape what the coalition are doing-
Its a weak defence of your party to ask any opposition party to put forward proposals 7 months into a parliament- particularly when Cameron and Clegg have already said its 4 and a half years to the next vote- what would be the point of doing that at this stage -and
How do you justify some conservative councils in the south of england where needs are far less onerous receiving little or no cuts or even in one case a small increase in overall grant- is that your description of fair- it certainly isnt mine