English councils to remain poorer than in 2010 despite funding rise, says report1 day ago7 min read5 comments

A sobering analysis from the Institute for Government reveals a stark political reality: English councils will emerge from this parliament financially weaker than they were in 2010, despite Labour's above-inflation funding increases. This is not merely a budgetary footnote; it is the legacy of an austerity programme so profound that its scars will define local governance for a generation.The cuts from 2010 to 2019 were not a trimming of fat but a deep, structural dismantling of local authority capacity, creating fiscal chasms that five subsequent years of increased expenditure cannot hope to bridge. The consequence is a fundamental shift in the role of the state at the local level.Councils have been systematically reduced to providers of last resort, their functions hollowed out until only the legally mandated services—the bare bones of social care, waste collection, and child protection—remain. This strategic retreat from broader community-building initiatives, from libraries and leisure centres to preventative social programs, represents a historic contraction of civic ambition.The increasing reliance on emergency, piecemeal funding is a symptom of this systemic failure, creating a perpetual state of financial precarity that makes long-term planning impossible. One can draw a historical parallel to the post-war reconstruction era, where a collective national will was marshalled to build anew; today, we witness the un-building of that very infrastructure, a slow-motion reversal of the civic compact.The report underscores that this is not a temporary cash-flow problem but a permanent recalibration of expectations. The 'post-austerity' era, it seems, is a mirage.The resilience of local government has been critically compromised, leaving it dangerously exposed to future economic shocks, much like a military force that has disbanded its reserves just as a new front threatens to open. The political ramifications are immense, challenging the very narrative of recovery and posing a fundamental question about what kind of society we intend to be—one that invests in the foundations of community or one that manages its decline.