George Osborne left Britain a legacy of soaring council tax bills
The majority of local authorities are expected to raise council tax bills by the maximum permitted amount of 5pc in April – with many applying for rights to raise the levy even higher.
A 5pc increase alone would send bills for the average Band D home above £2,500 in 21 areas – up from four last year, according to analysis by the TaxPayers' Alliance pressure group.
Yet taxpayers increasingly feel like they are getting less and less for their money, with some authorities cutting bin collections to just once a month – a symptom of decline in their fiscal health.
If you're looking to appoint blame, Keir Starmer's Government may make for an easy target – but in reality, the issue dates back to cuts spearheaded by George Osborne 10 years ago.
Following the Conservative party's victory in the 2010 general election, the former chancellor wasted little time in launching his own assault on public spending – a period of austerity that crippled public spending and investment lasting almost a decade.
Just months after the election, Mr Osborne announced that local authority funding would be cut by 27pc over the following four years, along with 'a massive devolution of financial power' that would see councils gain more responsibility over where money was spent, and cuts were made.
The former chancellor also made good on a promise he made to give local authorities the ability to freeze council tax for two years, between 2012 and 2013. In exchange for freezing council tax, local authorities would receive additional funding – but in retrospect, this has proved to be a costly error for councils that took the deal.
'On the face of it, it sounds like a very good idea – and I imagine he thought it was a fantastic idea when he delivered his speech promising to lower the cost of living – but there were two huge problems,' says Joanne Pitt, senior policy manager at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).
'Firstly, council tax is cumulative. If councils raise council tax by 3pc or 5pc each year, their base council tax increases. If you do not increase council tax for two years, and other councils do, you fall behind permanently. It was an incredibly short-termist view, and councils are still paying for it.
'Secondly, freezing council tax across the board is a poor way to allocate limited public sector funds. If you look at who benefits from a reduction in council tax payments, it is not the poorest in society. If your policy objective is to help people in poverty, the figures do not work – it is too little across too broad a patch. People who do not need the support end up benefiting.
'If you combine that with the austerity over the following eight or nine years, it is a hell of a lot to come back from.'
Faced with more control over their spending and a significant blow to their budgets, several councils set about plugging the gap by investing some of the remaining money they had, plunging funds into everything from fine art to property, with the hope of beating cash returns and boosting their coffers.
The results have been disastrous, to put it mildly.
Between 2016 and 2019, local authorities collectively spent £3.1bn on office developments, £2.3bn on retail property including shopping centres, and nearly £1bn on industrial property, according to the National Audit Office (NAO) – which marked a 1400pc increase on the previous three years.
The Covid pandemic that immediately followed saw their value plunge, as the post-pandemic shift to homeworking depressed prices of office buildings.
Desperate for cash and unable to hold out and ride the ups and downs of their investments, councils sold £1.4bn of assets last year, despite analysts warning it was the worst possible time to do so.
After a series of failed investments – predominantly in solar farms – the local authority of Thurrock, Essex, accumulated debts of £1.5bn and was forced to declare bankruptcy in 2022. Its residents will see their council tax payments jump by 8pc from April.
Croydon Borough Council, which declared bankruptcy in both 2021 and 2022, has total capital borrowings of almost £2bn. It borrowed £545m over three years to invest in housing and commercial property, including a £200m loan to its own housing development arm Brick By Brick. After posting losses every year, Brick by Brick collapsed in 2022.
In December 2023, Nottingham City Council became the latest local authority to declare bankruptcy. One of the council's most notable failings was its decision to launch Robin Hood Energy in 2015, taking on the major energy suppliers in a highly competitive market. At one point, the firm boasted former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, as a customer.
Unfortunately, this was not enough for Robin Hood Energy to ever turn a profit, and it collapsed just five years after its inception. Leaked documents estimate a £38m cost to local taxpayers.
But while these instances make for effective cautionary tales – and have landed taxpayers in some local authorities with heftier tax bills – they are in the minority, says Ms Pitt, who has 25 years of experience advising local governments.
'Very few local authorities have actually done that, and those have hit the headlines. But you have over 300 of them, and the vast majority did not do that. Most organisations make sensible, pragmatic investment decisions within a prudent borrowing environment, but there are absolutely some outliers.'
It is not just giving councils both Conservative and Labour more freedom to invest the limited cash they have that has seen things go awry for so many local authorities.
The austerity pushed on councils by Mr Osborne saw funding cut from vital programmes, such as Sure Start, which invested in early learning and family support programmes. Between 2010 and 2022, funding for Sure Start dropped by over two thirds and over 1,300 centres closed their doors.
Community programmes were lifelines for young families, improving health and education standards, and therefore work prospects later in life. Sure Start reduced the likelihood of young people ending up in youth custody by a fifth, according to research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The effects of crippling cuts to these schemes – while saving the Government money in the short run – are now being seen, with councils forced to pick up the tab and hike taxes in turn.
By cutting spending on local people early on in their lives, councils are forced to pay more when they are older.
With the adult social care bill for adults projected to top £17bn by 2030, according to the County Councils Network (CCN), councils that fell behind in the 2010s due to austerity and tax freezes have been overwhelmed. Tax rises appear inevitable.
Ms Pitt adds: 'Ten years or so of austerity have taken their toll. Grants that councils received from the Government were reduced, which affected deprived areas more, as they couldn't raise council tax as much and raised their own income.
'You've got massively rising demand for schemes which support schools with special educational needs. More children are surviving that would have been born prematurely, which is fantastic – but that individual will need millions of pounds of help over their lifetime.
'As they go through the system, they become adults, and our funding system does not keep up with that sort of medical technology and the demand.
'Local authorities cannot afford those types of costs, because you've also got huge numbers of adults coming into the system in need of social care.
'If you have a high number of dependent adults and children, you cannot control your costs. You can't just say you've reached your limit.'
Instead of taking advantage of historically cheap borrowing rates and building infrastructure and investing in communities so that Britain may reap the rewards of growth and lower taxes for years to come, George Osborne had other ideas.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard put it best, writing in The Telegraph in 2022: '[Austerity] both lowered the growth trajectory of the economy and slowed the organic fall in the debt ratio, and was therefore futile in every respect.'
For a country desperate to find its way to healthy economic growth six years on from austerity, rising council tax may be just the tip of the iceberg.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Rio Tinto Eyes Bailout for Australian Aluminum Smelter, AFR Says
Rio Tinto Group is seeking a multibillion-dollar government bailout for its Tomago aluminum smelter — Australia's largest electricity user — due to spiraling energy costs, the Australian Financial Review reported. The talks center on the smelter's electricity contract for 2026 to 2029 and the federal government's production tax credits, the newspaper reported Saturday, citing unidentified sources familiar with the discussions. One person interviewed by the AFR said any bailout package will likely be 'more sophisticated' than a direct subsidy and that talks are mainly being conducted with the New South Wales state government.


Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
Musk feud presents 'unprecedented' dynamic compared to past Trump disputes: expert
The ongoing feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, his one-time "special government employee," has brought an "unprecedented" dynamic compared to other famous disputes, long-time Democratic political strategist and Fox News contributor Jacques DeGraff said. After somewhat muted rumblings from Musk about why he opposed a Trump-endorsed Republican spending package, the DOGE leader launched complaints after Trump began firing back this week, including threats aimed at Musk's business revenue. "It's unprecedented, but the reality is that what makes it a singular moment in history is that no single figure has ever been able to say, 'I made a president and then (fell) out with that individual," DeGraff told Fox News Digital Friday. "There have been groups, there have been individuals who wanted to pretend that they did, but the record is clear. And, I mean, this man (Elon) brought his son into the Oval Office. He wore a hat and didn't wear a suit to the Oval Office. He clearly had carte blanche. … The president, in effect, did a Tesla ad in the Rose Garden … and now they've fallen out in life." DeGraffe, who has been a political advocate and strategist for years, quipped that, ordinarily, "we would have to go to family court," adding "what's the court here?" Trump is no stranger to quarrels with his staff. During his first term, his relationship soured with his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, and his press secretary, Anthony Scaramucci, after they diverged on different issues and publicly criticized Trump. But, for DeGraffe at least, this quarrel has "distinguished itself from anything in the past." One major difference he pointed to is the implications for both parties in this spat. "Tesla stock has dropped $150 billion, Trump stock has dropped but it also occurs at the same time as this legislation and so that is going to have – no matter how it turns out – it's going to have massive political and public policy implications for the country," DeGraffe said. "So this is no small dispute." DeGraffe also contended that this is "the first time" there has been a major deviation from Trump "from the MAGA side of the aisle." He suggested the split could be bad news for Trump and others who hope to see the GOP's budget package pass the finish line in its current form. "This major split will allow other players to take positions other than the party line, and it gives them room and comfort and cover in order to do so," DeGraffe suggested. "Will senators who follow Musk, or, better yet, disagree with Musk, face intensely funded primaries? "That's a consideration that everyone involved will have to take. … As a lifelong Democrat, I'm sitting with my bowl of popcorn saying, 'Go at it.' Because anything that slows this horrific legislation has got to be good news to the rest of the country." However, while DeGraffe sees the Trump-Musk feud as having wide-ranging and lasting implications, GOP political strategist Dallas Woodhouse says he thinks the feud is unimportant to most Republicans. "I am currently at the North Carolina State GOP convention, and this is not a topic of concern among activists," Woodhouse said. "No doubt it makes for funny and entertaining X posts, but the GOP faithful are laser-focused on growing the new diverse GOP/Trump winning coalition."