
Thousands of jobs at risk in shake-up of English councils, Unison warns
Thousands of English council jobs are at risk in a shake-up of local government, the country's biggest trade union has warned.
Christina McAnea, the general secretary of Unison, sounded the alarm as councils submit their final proposals for mergers and reorganisation by the end of this week.
She warned the changes 'cannot be used as a convenient cover for job cuts' and that it would be a 'travesty if crucial public services are shut down, outsourced or sold off'.
More than 10,000 public sector jobs are already at risk in the civil service and the overhaul of NHS England could lead to about 9,500 job losses. With a worsening economic outlook and the Treasury looking for additional money to avoid missing its fiscal targets, unions are concerned that councils will be targeted for further cost savings even after years of austerity.
The plan to merge some county and district bodies into unitary authorities will affect six regions and abolish many lower tier councils. It has already caused controversy as many of the areas affected are intending to defer local elections while the changes are put into place.
Several councils voted through changes this week, with Surrey council agreeing to split into two unitary authorities, losing 11 borough and district councils.
The government has proposed that most areas of England will switch to unitary councils to provide local services, including social care, housing, waste collections and planning.
McAnea called on ministers to promise no compulsory redundancies would be made and that wages, pensions and benefits, such as sick pay and leave, must be protected when workers were transferred to the new authorities. She said current arrangements that allowed unions to negotiate centrally with a national body over pay should also be preserved.
Councils are already facing uncertainty with the Treasury planning cuts for unprotected Whitehall departments in the spending review. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has calculated that unprotected departments such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government could have their budgets reduced by about 1.9% a year, or 7% over the rest of the parliament.
The Local Government Association warned in its submission to the review that councils faced a combined funding shortfall of £20bn over the four years of the spending review period.
Unison said job losses at district councils could run into thousands, with workers also left vulnerable to new pay deals if transferred or re-employed on different contracts.
No community would want to see their services reduced so these should be preserved after the transition, the union added.
McAnea said: 'Thousands of council roles are at risk under these wide-ranging proposals. Local authorities are under severe financial strain following years of austerity. But communities mustn't lose the expertise that ensures authorities can support their residents.
'It would be a travesty if crucial public services are shut down, outsourced or sold off in pursuit of further savings across a sector that's already suffered savage cuts for many years.
'Councils are long overdue a multi-year funding settlement that stabilises local services, ensures residents can access the support they deserve and protects staff. A fair pay deal, including for care workers, must be part of the solution.'
The Office for Budget Responsibility will hand Rachel Reeves its final forecasts on Friday, including its assessment of how close the chancellor is to breaking her promises to have a balanced day-to-day budget by 2029-30 and to have debt falling by the same time.
Government sources have said Reeves will not announce any tax rises next week, despite Conservative claims that she is planning to introduce a stealth income tax raid by freezing the threshold where people start paying it.
Officials are not denying reports that they could seek to increase Whitehall budgets by an average of 1.1% a year after 2025-26, rather than the 1.3% announced last year.
Given that much of this money would be taken up by expected rises to budgets in areas such as the NHS, schools and defence, the IFS calculates this would mean other departments – such as justice, the Home Office and local government – falling by about 1.9% a year, or 7% over the rest of the parliament.

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


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Letting banks loose is back on the agenda as UK politicians chase growth at any cost
As the old ways of turning a profit become more difficult – from assembling cars to selling soap powder – politicians of all stripes want the City to inject some dynamism into the economy. From Labour to Reform, the siren call of London's financial district is strong. If only, they ask, the wheels of the banking industry could be cranked to spin faster, surely much more money could be generated and we would all be rich. While Rachel Reeves boasted of the huge benefit to economic growth from public investments in rail and renewable energy as central pillars of the government's spending review, in truth it is not enough to propel the economy forward. To generate the kind of income that will pay for the next 30 years of an ageing society, plans to link Manchester and Liverpool by a marginally faster and more reliable train, though good in itself, is not the answer. The Treasury knows it is just an upgrade to existing services and will deliver only incremental returns. To turbocharge growth, the chancellor wants private money to take the lead, partnering government to share the burden of building bridges and tunnels and spurring investments in whizzy new ventures. And as a start, the Treasury wants the shackles taken off the bankers so they can become more inventive in the way they make money, taking risks that were previously frowned upon, if not banned, and rewarding themselves accordingly. It is 18 years since Northern Rock's high-risk mortgage lending began to unravel and 17 years since Lehman Brothers went bust. Long enough, it seems, for memories to fade, and with them concerns about the damaging consequences of light-touch regulation. That said, it's easy to see why the temptation to let the banks loose is back on the agenda. UK banks are among the most profitable in Europe and London plays host to the largest number of foreign banks. The UK's unicorn businesses – those privately held startup companies worth more than £1bn – rank in number behind only the US, India and China. Some startups are considered to be at the forefront of the financial technology boom, including Revolut and Monzo. What could be better for Britain than to leverage a fintech industry that already has a worldwide reputation? Revolut has championed handling funds invested in cryptocurrencies, and for this service, and its banking and wealth management, it has emerged as the most successful European fintech of the past decade. It was valued at $45bn last year. And there is no stopping the chief executive, co-founder and 25% owner, Nikolay Storonsky. He plans to expand into mortgages and consumer lending to challenge the major lenders, as well as growing in the US. Monzo is the digital bank best known for its coral pink debit cards. After 10 years, the company announced its first profit last year, of £15.4m, after more than doubling revenues to almost £900m. Reeves also wants pension funds to take more risks, which is a boon for an asset management industry that has fallen out of favour with the public in recent years due to its high charges and failure to deliver returns that better passive investments. Last week, the House of Lords financial services regulation committee gave Labour's mission a boost. It attacked the main City watchdogs – the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority – for having 'a deeply entrenched culture of risk aversion'. In a report that the Treasury will have privately welcomed, the committee said the regulators were partly to blame for holding back economic growth. If the FCA and PRA, which have already pledged to reduce the paperwork and oversight of the City, become more trusting of its ability to manage risk, there is likely to be a sugar rush of activity, much as there was during the noughties. Labour has helped get the ball rolling by lifting the bankers' bonus cap, to allow publicly listed banks to join the bonanza of rewards enjoyed by executives in Revolut and Monzo. Monzo may have made only £15.4m profit but this modest sum was not to be re-invested. It was enough to warrant big payouts, including a £12m bag of cash and shares that Reuters said most likely went to the chief executive, TS Anil. Underscoring how light-touch regulation is matched by executive pay bonanzas, a report last month by the jobs website eFinancialCareers found that bonuses in the UK's investment banks had risen by 26% year on year, beating their equivalents in Asia, Europe and the US. The average bonus payout for a City executive was about £110,000. And the trickle-down effect works in finance. At junior levels, bonuses increased by as much as 133%, the survey found. Labour's backbench MPs know how this play ends. After all the partying and profit-making, there will be a severe hangover. And when that happens, the taxpayer is asked to save the day. Somehow, the profits of the financial sector belong to the bosses and the losses belong to the people.


BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Belfast: Anti-racism rally held after days of violence
Demonstrators gathered in Belfast city centre to show support for Northern Ireland's migrant community following a week of in the crowd held signs with slogans such as "racists go home", "refugees are welcome" and "diversity makes us stronger".Violence started on Monday after a peaceful protest over an alleged sexual assault in Ballymena, County Antrim, and later spread to other Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) Chief Constable Jon Boutcher said "bigots and racists" were behind the rioting. Speaking at the anti-racism rally at Belfast City Hall, Nathalie Donnelly from trade union Unison said she had colleagues from ethnic minority backgrounds who were terrified and "basically hiding at home"."They get to work in taxis, come home and hide in their own houses," she told BBC News NI."We've got a small English class every week - half of the students didn't even dare to come out for the English class."Ms Donnelly said even people who had lived in Northern Ireland for a long time had an "overwhelming sense of sadness and disgust at what is happening and are really questioning staying here". Ms Donnelly, who is originally from France, said she had "made Ireland [her] home" but she felt it was "no longer the Ireland that [she is] proud of"."We should make Ireland the island of a hundred thousand welcomes again," she said. Friday night saw a fifth night of violence when police in Portadown, County Armagh, used water cannon to tackle rioters who were attacking were targeted with petrol bombs, fireworks, masonry, bricks and the demo at City Hall, Belfast's deputy lord mayor said hr wanted to show solidarity to people who had been targeted in the of other political parties and trade unions joined Paul Doherty at the event and there was a small police presence. Doherty said the demonstration was about standing up to "racist thugs who have been on our streets intimidating and threatening families and driving them from their homes"."We're speaking to people right across this city, indeed right across the north, who are afraid to walk down the street, who are afraid to bring their children to school, who are afraid to say hello to someone as they pass them on the street," he added that one parent told him their children were asking: "Daddy why do people hate us out there?""Imagine children - five, six, seven years of age - asking their parents 'why do people hate us?' That's not the type of society we want in Belfast or across the north," he said."We need to bring a stop to this."Doherty said the police and Northern Ireland Executive "need to step up" and "a better response" was needed from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The force has said it will do all it can to bring people to justice and on Friday it issued images of people it wants to speak to in connection with the PSNI officers were injured in Portadown on Friday night, with more than 60 physically hurt over the course of the past week. Timeline Timeline: How a week of violent disorder unfolded MondayA peaceful protest is held in Ballymena, County Antrim, after two teenage boys appear before Coleraine Magistrates' Court accused of sexually assaulting a teenage spoke through an interpreter in Romanian to confirm their names and ages. Their solicitor said they would be denying the in the day, violence breaks out when a number of people wearing masks break away from the peaceful protest, build barricades and attack properties on Clonavon throw petrol bombs, bricks and fireworks at attack police during another night of disorder in Ballymena. Cars are set on fire and the windows of several houses are also deal with sporadic incidents of disorder in Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus in County Antrim and north worst of the disorder is again in Ballymena, but unrest also spreads to other Larne, County Antrim, masked youths attack a leisure centre and set it on fire. The centre had been providing emergency shelter for Scotland agrees to send officers to Northern Ireland to provide support. ThursdayA fourth night of disorder, but at a lower level than seen earlier in the 400 protestors gather in the centre of Portadown, County Armagh. Bricks and masonry are thrown at is also a police presence in Ballymena, but the rioters stay 100 people turn up at an anti-racism protest in west Belfast, which passes off home of a family with three children is set on fire in in Portadown use water cannon to tackle rioters but the violence is again at a lower level than earlier in the release photos of four suspects they want the public to help identify in connection with the disorder.

ITV News
5 hours ago
- ITV News
The £13 bn hole in the government's 2.6% defence target
The Chancellor's and the Treasury's assertion, in its latest Spending Review, that by 2027 defence spending will 'reach 2.6% of GDP' is not all it seems, to the tune of about £13 billion. Here's why. The published forecasts for defence spending in the financial years 2026/7 and 2027/8, of £65.5 billion and £71 billion respectively in cash terms, are 2.1% and 2.2% of the OBR's forecast of 'current prices' GDP in those years. This is a long way short of the pledged 2.6%. The gap in cash terms is £13 billion - which is NOT a rounding error. I should start by saying that 24 hours ago I asked Treasury officials to explain the gap. It can't be hard for them to do so. They've gone away to think about it. So here are a few of my thoughts about what is going on. Some of you may remember that the government is including 'Nato qualifying' spending on intelligence in its calculation of that 2.6% target. From Westminster to Washington DC - our political experts are across all the latest key talking points. Listen to the latest episode below... But defence-related intelligence cannot possibly be more than a fifth of all UK spending on Mi6, Mi5 and GCHQ, because Nato is very clear that the only intelligence spending that counts has to be directly related to military operations. I am going to be generous and assume spending on military intelligence that is part of the so-called Single Intelligence Account and outside of the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) budget is just over a billion pounds. Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary, tells me this is absurdly high. But I am trying to give the Treasury the benefit of the doubt. Even with my generosity there is a £12 billion gap. And by the way, even if every single penny of intelligence spending was attributed to defence, there would be a £7 billion gap! One Treasury official said another £1.6 billion is probably the £1.6 billion annual cash cost of army pensions. I'll lop that off the £13 billion. Which leaves only £10 billion to find. Wallace told me that when Osborne was chancellor, he insisted that in submissions of the UK's defence spending to Nato the MoD had to include the VAT it pays on procurement. As Wallace says this is double counting, because the VAT is paid to the Treasury. When defence secretary, he was so infuriated that one year he refused to submit numbers to Nato. So perhaps the whole of the £10 billion gap is VAT. And maybe the reason the Treasury isn't getting back to me to confirm or deny is that it knows neither Nato or President Trump would be impressed that a huge proportion of our claimed defence spending may be around £10 billion in tax payments to... the British government. Anyway, now that I've put these numbers in the public domain, I await with interest clarification from the Treasury of what's going on here. None of what I've just said takes away from the published fact that defence spending is rising 3.8% faster than inflation for the next three years. That is a huge amount of resource being transferred to defence. But if when you read that the UK is set to spend 2.6% of GDP on defence, you thought all of that significant expenditure was on the armed forces, munitions, military satellites, nukes, planes and boats - as I did - you need to think again.