Cumberland Council criticised for £23m borrowing as tax rises
A council has been criticised for approving plans to borrow £23m while raising council tax.Cumberland Council approved its budget this week, meaning families will pay £4.99% more council tax - between £1.16 and £1.76 more each week.Conservative councillor Gareth Ellis said he believed it was not a budget for residents, but for a council that was "knee-deep in debt". Councillor Barbara Cannon, who is responsible for finance at the Labour-led authority, said the council was facing "significant financial pressures" but would continue to protect its most vulnerable residents.
She said funding was "insufficient" and there was no alternative but to ask for Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) from the Government totalling £23m.Cannon said that borrowing was not a "dirty word" because it helped in areas such as providing infrastructure, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.Ellis disagreed with Labour leaders' claim that it was a "balanced budget", because it required such extensive borrowing.
'Huge debt'
Independent councillor Robert Betton raised concerns about the council tax increase at a time when people were "struggling with the cost-of-living crisis".For residents on low incomes who may need help paying the tax, the budget includes funding worth £22m a year for the Council Tax Reduction Scheme.The meeting at the civic centre in Carlisle approved a gross revenue budget of more than £800m, of which the net budget of £333m is paid for through council tax, business rates and government grants.According to a report presented to councillors, the main change for the 2025-26 financial year was the introduction of the second homes premium, which would see council tax double for second homes from 1 April.The Lib Dems and Green parties proposed amendments to the budget but they fell when put to a vote. Councillor Mike Johnson, the leader of the Conservative group, said the council was in debt to the tune of £244m, most of which was inherited from the former Cumbria County Council.He said: "If the budget is approved it will continue to increase."
Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
27 minutes ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Swinney – Reform voters in Hamilton by-election ‘angry', not racist
The First Minister was asked on the BBC Scotland's Sunday Show if those who backed Reform were 'gullible' or 'racist' – a term the SNP leader has previously used to describe the party. Mr Swinney said the 7,088 people who backed Reform – more than a quarter of the vote – in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse ballot were 'neither', but were instead 'angry at the cost-of-living crisis'. He added: 'I think that's what motivates the Reform vote. People have got poorer because of one central thing – Brexit, and the author of that is (Reform UK leader Nigel) Farage. 'I'm standing up to Farage. I'm going to make no apology for it.' He said the SNP is 'in the process of recovery' and he had come into office as First Minister a year ago 'inheriting some significant difficulties' within the party, and that it needs to get stronger before the Holyrood election in 2026. He said voters are 'having to work hard for less' and are concerned about public services, particularly the NHS. Mr Swinney was asked about comments he made prior to the vote saying 'Labour were not at the races' and claiming it was a 'two-horse race' between the SNP and Reform. Labour's Davy Russell gained the seat from the SNP with 8,559 votes, while SNP candidate Katy Loudon came second on 7,957, ahead of Reform's Ross Lambie. The First Minister said that since the general election campaign last year, people he has met have pledged never to vote Labour due to the winter fuel allowance being cut, while Reform's support increased. Mr Swinney said: 'People were telling us on the doorsteps, they were giving us reasons why they weren't supporting Labour. We could also see that Farage's support was rising dramatically and that's happening across the United Kingdom, it's not unique to Hamilton. 'I positioned the SNP to be strong enough to stop Farage, and that's what we were determined to do.' Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has branded the SNP's campaign 'dishonest and disgraceful' and said it had put the spotlight on Reform. Those comments were put to the First Minister, who said he had previously been allies with Mr Sarwar in a campaign to 'stand up to far-right thinking'. Mr Swinney said: 'That was months ago and then we found ourselves in the aftermath of the UK local authority elections, the English local authority elections where Farage surged to a leading position and won a by-election south of the border. 'So the dynamic of our politics change in front of us. 'I've been standing up to Farage for months, I've been warning about the dangers of Farage for months, and they crystallised in the rise of Farage during the Hamilton, Stonehouse and Larkhall by-election.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Government needs the can-do mindset I experienced in the Army to push change through fast
Government moves too slowly. That's not just the fault of the current government or the last one – it's the system. Slowed down by bureaucracy. Paralysed by 'can't-do' figures. Obsessed with process over progress. I come from a background of delivery. In the Army, working in a 'human intelligence unit' – liaising with agents and special forces – we had to move from first gear to fifth in an instant. Lives depended on it. Getting ahead of the enemy, protecting our people and achieving results was the mission – not talking it to death. Confirming the location of a high-value target, whilst also ensuring they were alone and targetable, or identifying the precise site of an improvised explosive device factory, required creativity and a determined mindset – a willingness to take calculated risks to save lives and win. When I worked in counterterrorism at the Ministry of Defence, delivery wasn't optional. We built a culture of 'can-do'; creative, risk-aware and focused on action. It wasn't about perfection. It was about progress. Government could learn a lot from the mindset of the finest military in the world and the departments that work every day to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. An unstoppable political will must go hand in hand with a mindset of delivery. I think back to our counterterror planning meetings. The mission? To stop terrorists attacking our great country. No timewasters. Just serious professionals putting ideas on the table, pulling them apart, war-gaming every outcome, then locking in a plan and going all-out to deliver. That mindset – challenge, rigour and rapid execution – is what the system of government has desperately lacked for decades. Too often, it's delay by design. Endless consultations. Five-year strategies that take ten. Pet projects blocked by internal turf wars. Take the Lower Thames Crossing: more than £1.2 billion spent before a single spade in the ground – all because of drawn-out decision-making and red tape. Or the A9 dualling project in Scotland – promised by 2025, now pushed back to 2035. Ten years of drift. These delays are not acts of God. They are failures of will. The truth is, Whitehall needs reform. There are dedicated, brilliant people across the civil service – but too many are trapped in a system built to say 'no'. Risk aversion is often rewarded, not challenged. Delivery is too often deprioritised in favour of process, and meaningful reform is blocked by a sprawling web of arms-length bodies and quangos that diffuse responsibility and stifle urgency. We need a leaner, more focused state – one that empowers departments to move at pace and is held accountable for outcomes, not paperwork. That means streamlining quangos where appropriate, ending duplication, and changing the mindset within government itself. Ministers must be prepared to challenge officials – not to attack, but to sharpen decision-making and force clarity on delivery. Wes Streeting 's approach to the NHS offers a blueprint. He's made clear that, as health secretary, he expects faster delivery, more accountability, and a culture that doesn't settle for 'this is just how things are done'. Abolishing NHS England shows a steely commitment to the change he expects. But reforming structures is only half the battle – changing the culture is the real prize. Government must operate with a sense of mission, not maintenance. The British public doesn't care whether a successful policy comes from Bevan or Thatcher. They care that it works. That it's delivered. We need to strip out the ideology and face complex problems with a solutions-based mindset. Let the evidence lead. Move fast. Be willing to make mistakes in the name of making progress. And above all, get things done. Because there's serious work to do.
