POLITICAL UPDATE: THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - March 2025

Declan Johnson, Consultant

Legislative & Policy Developments

• AI Act Implementation Guidelines Finalised: The EP adopted technical standards for enforcing the AI Act, focusing on high risk systems, transparency, and penalties for non-compliance.

• Green Deal Industrial Plan Expanded: New measures approved to boost clean tech manufacturing, including subsidies for European battery production and renewable hydrogen.

• Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) Amendments: Stricter rules passed requiring large firms to monitor environmental and human rights impacts across supply chains.

• Digital Services Act (DSA) Enforcement Strengthened: New oversight mechanisms introduced to tackle illegal content and disinformation ahead of EU-wide elections.

2. Economic & Financial Policies

• Eurozone Fiscal Rules Reform: Agreement reached on more flexible debt reduction targets, allowing member states longer adjustment periods.

• Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Package: Final approval given to a centralised EU AML Authority and expanded crypto currency oversight.

• Banking Union Progress: Proposal for a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) advanced to reduce financial fragmentation.

3. Climate & Energy

• 2035 Combustion Engine Ban Confirmed: No further exemptions granted, solidifying the phase-out of new petrol/diesel car sales by 2035.

• Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) Expanded: New sectors (chemicals, plastics) added to the levy on carbon-intensive imports.

• Renewable Energy Targets Increased: Binding 45% renewables share by 2030 endorsed, with faster permitting for wind/solar projects.

4. Foreign Affairs & Security

• Ukraine Facility Fund Activated: €50 billion package approved for 2025–2027, combining grants, loans, and military aid.

• EU-China Trade Safeguards: New anti-subsidy probes launched on Chinese EVs and solar panels, with provisional tariffs expected by mid-2025.

• Defence Industrial Strategy Unveiled: Joint procurement incentives and €3 billion fund to ramp up ammunition production.

5. Social & Rights Based Initiatives

• European Media Freedom Act (EMFA): Rules to protect journalists from spyware and political interference adopted.

• Right to Repair Directive Passed: Manufacturers required to provide spare parts and repairs for electronics/appliances for up to 10 years.

• LGBTQ+ Rights Resolution: Non-binding vote urging member states to recognize same-sex parenthood EU-wide.

6. Institutional & Electoral Updates

• 2024 Election Review Published: Report on disinformation threats and voter turnout trends ahead of the 2029 cycle.

• EP Seat Reallocation Post-Brexit: Final agreement on redistributing 14 vacant seats among 12 member states.

7. Health & Consumer Protection

• Pharmaceutical Strategy Reform: Faster approvals for generics and measures to prevent drug shortages passed.

• Food Waste Reduction Targets: Binding 30% cut by 2030 agreed, with stricter monitoring for supermarkets.

8. Digital & Innovation

• European Chips Act Funding Released: €4 billion allocated for semiconductor R&D and manufacturing.

• Data Act Enters Force: Rules on fair access to industrial/data-sharing take effect, with GDPR-aligned safeguards

9. Next Steps

• April plenary to focus on migration pact implementation and defence cooperation.

• Critical votes expected on the EU budget revision and nature restoration law.

Housing Crisis: Direct action (urgently) needed

Bailey-Lee Robb, Councillor, Fife Council

Upon being elected to local government in May 2022, I was regularly advised by my now-colleagues that housing will almost certainly make up the majority of my casework – and they weren’t wrong. Since being elected, I have found myself being regularly stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to housing cases.

When I am regularly faced with constituents who are in desperate need of housing, and have been waiting on ‘lists’ for five, sometimes ten years plus, I am left feeling deflated and unable to help. I do not have any new advice or support that I can provide them that their other elected representatives and their respective offices haven’t already given them. I cannot seek to highlight their case with council officers, but merely ask for an update on where they sit within these lists. 

The truth is that for the overwhelming majority of individuals and families that find themselves on these social housing lists, is that they will almost never receive an offer of housing. The reason being is that there simply is not enough social housing available within this country as it stands, for a variety of different political reasons, not least the decision to flog off ex-council houses on the cheap.

Despite local government and housing associations here in Scotland ramping up their building efforts, they are not building near enough year on year, and they are not completing them quickly enough. This is in spite of central government support for each new build that is completed, and is thanks, in part, to the levels of inflation we find ourselves dealing with.

However, it does not matter how many homes are built each year, demand will consistently outstrip supply. The UK Government must wake up to this, and provide the political leadership that has been missing for so long.

We need major reform of social housing by central government, backed by major infrastructure capital investment and the political drive to spur it on. This should be our single focus as a country over the next few years as we seek to truly rebuild after the COVID pandemic. This would not only allow us to scale up house building across the country, but also the infrastructure that our communities require alongside these estates.

This investment in infrastructure is essential as too often, new housing sites are being vehemently opposed by local communities due to the weakening amenities they find themselves with; roads, schools, GP practices; pharmacies, and much more. These objections from the community are often ignored as part of the planning process, causing rifts before a spade is even in the ground, creating an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ mentality for when families do move in.

However, we all agree that the housing crisis is exactly that – a crisis. We have 70% of our homes provided to those who identify as homeless here in Fife. Many constituents advise me that they have no other option but to present as homeless to get a property. Is this really how the system should be working? Is the system really that broken that individuals must now be homeless to be housed?

It is time for our political leaders to stand up, introduce major reform, stump up the cash, and get on with delivery. This is truly how the government can deliver on its levelling up agenda; by ensuring families have a warm, safe home to return to each night.

Right to Buy has failed – it’s time to reform it

Victor Chamberlain, Councillor, Southwark Council

In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government introduced the "Right to Buy" scheme in the United Kingdom, allowing council tenants to purchase their homes at discounted prices. At the time, it was hailed as a revolutionary policy, promising social mobility and homeownership for the masses. However, as the years have passed, it has become increasingly evident that Right to Buy has failed to live up to its lofty aspirations, exacerbating rather than alleviating the housing crisis in the UK.

By allowing tenants to buy their council homes at discounted rates, the government inadvertently depleted the stock of affordable housing available for those in need. This has created a vicious cycle where the demand for social housing far exceeds the supply, leading to skyrocketing rents and homelessness. The cost of building new homes is simply not covered by the receipts from Right to Buy. 

Amidst a housing crisis of unprecedented proportions, characterized by over a million people on council housing waiting lists and eye watering spending on temporary accommodation, the status quo of the Right to Buy scheme is untenable. The latest figures paint a stark picture: while thousands of homes are sold through Right to Buy each year, the number of replacements falls drastically short, resulting in a net loss of social homes. Councils can’t and the private sector isn’t building enough genuinely affordable homes. 

The implications of this trend are profound. Vulnerable individuals and families find themselves locked out of secure, safe social housing, while local authorities grapple with dwindling resources and escalating demand. It is imperative that we take decisive action to rectify this situation.

I sit on the Local Government Association’s Local Infrastructure and Net Zero Board. We’ve recently published a paper on three crucial reforms that are urgently required to safeguard our social housing stock and ensure everyone has access to quality and affordable housing:

We need to give councils control over the use of funds raised through the Right to Buy, enabling them to invest in the development, delivery, or acquisition of new council homes as per local needs. Local councils understand their local housing needs best and they know the solutions required for their communities.

We need to protect council’s investment in social housing to prevent loss-making transactions. We can do this by increasing the tenancy requirements to enable right to buy to 15 years, exempting newly built and retrofitted homes from right to buy and introducing an indefinite cost floor protection so the purchase price of the property does not fall below what councils have invested to build and maintain homes, 

We should allow councils to shape the Right to Buy scheme according to their unique circumstances. For examples councils should be able to set the discount on levels on which homes can be purchased and in some areas this could be at 0%. This localised approach ensures that housing solutions resonate with the needs and aspirations of local communities.

As we gear up to the General Election, we must focus all political parties on the need for Right to Buy reform to champion initiatives that protect social housing over short-term gains. If Government were adopt these reforms it would allow Councils to regain their positon as a major house builder of affordable housing. 

The Right to Buy scheme stands at a crossroads, poised between perpetuating the status quo with social housing losses and embracing transformative reforms that will serve the needs of our diverse communities. It is incumbent upon everyone that cares about social progress to tackle our housing crisis and help councils to build the 100,000 social homes we need each year.

We must seize this moment as an opportunity to enact meaningful change, to safeguard the future of social housing, and to uphold the fundamental right to safe and secure housing for all. The time for action is now, and together, we can build a brighter future for generations to come.

The LOcal Elections - And What theY MEan for the East

Colin Campbell, Councillor, Southend City Council

“Clunky”, “toxic”, “caustic and divisive” – this is how the political decision-making at Southend-on-Sea City Council was described by internal and external stakeholders during the Local Government Association’s Corporate Peer Challenge in October 2022. This is after Southend failed to appoint a new chief executive for a year between 2021 and 2022, with two candidates withdrawing from the selection process after witnessing a meeting of councillors and observing their behaviour.

Now, looking to Southend, our electoral success, was in stark contrast to the difficult situation beholding the national Party. My colleague and I were two rare Conservative gains in Southend, and we managed to form a minority administration whilst colleagues up and down the country lost seats and control. The Party only won 29% of seats up for election this last May: a clear showing that youthful candidates and effective data-led campaigns can win despite the national picture.

However, that was not just the case in Southend. We ran a campaign targeting the coalition: a vote for anyone but the Conservatives is a vote for Labour to keep running the show. This triumphed, with the Lib Dems and Independents losing seats to the Conservatives. We also highlighted the poor management of the Council, with debt soaring to £357.4M and a £10M investment in an economically unviable scheme called Seaway, as well as unpopular policies, such as charging residents to use car parks after 6pm and looking to build on the Green Belt.

The recent elections resulted in the fracture of the Independents into smaller groups, Labour cycling through leaders (and trying to oust one after just 11 days) as well as losing a councillor due to bullying, and the Lib Dems losing ground to elect the first ever Green. It therefore was only right that the Conservatives – the natural, sensible party of governance – were to bring some order to the chaos that had been reigning over Southend.

So, what have the Conservatives discovered since entering administration? The budgets which Labour described as “balanced” appear to be not so stable. Upon further investigation, the Council’s finances are in a far more dire position than what the coalition were letting on. This is due to a destructive concoction of poor governance – councillors happy to take a cabinet member paycheck without having to do much work – and senior officers getting to run amuck.

The whole point of having democratic oversight is to prevent this; however, Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Independents were more than happy to forego their responsibilities. Yet, at the same time, they were happy to “Tory-bash” the national Government for their actions and accuse the local Conservatives of being toxic for asking scrutinising questions. If one ever needs an example of coalitions that do not work, just look at Southend 2019 to 2023. The Conservatives, once again, have to be the sensible party willing to take decisive action for the betterment of all residents.

This is further highlighted in the latest Cabinet papers which show a forecast revenue overspend of circa £14M. This has been met with calls of outrage from Labour: “they’ve managed to overspend more in 3 months than the last administration did in a whole year!”. This is an interesting reaction. Now, they gladly admit to overspending whilst in control, causing our debt to skyrocket, yet they also berate the Conservative Administration for not providing financial support to, nor buying, Southend United Football Club – a private enterprise.

Which is it, we’re spending too much or not enough? The Labour philosophy of governance. I would like to add that, since being elected and the Conservatives taking control in May, a new budget has not yet been passed by the Council – meaning we are still using their previous one! Very coy of them to shout loudly “look at this financial mess” and point their fingers at the ones controlling the reins, having caused all of the problems themselves.

And that’s just the monetary and governance side of things (albeit the most important, in my view!). The ongoings behind the scenes are even more fascinating. The coalition, in the run up to the elections in May, were running on a joint platform. Harmony in the sense of anyone but the Conservatives. (Tactical politics and voting at its finest).

So, if all the other parties were so chummy, why is there now a break-off residents’ group? Why does a Labour councillor leave the Chamber every time their leader speaks? And why are the Lib Dems in battle with a senior councillor that served in leadership with them? Because it was all a sham. They were united in their hatred of the Conservatives, and this blinded them entirely from the point of what they were elected to do.

They had no interest in running an administration, they had no interest in providing services to residents, and they had no interest in making Southend a better place to live. Their only goal: stop the Conservatives no matter what. This is the key issue when it comes to politics, especially at a local level. Conservatives act when in power, the rest take action to keep them out.

In Southend, they make sure to say punchy lines to clip for their Twitter accounts and prove to their national party they should be allowed to stand for Parliament – talking for the sake of talking without actually saying anything. Their motions are similar, policy made on the hoof for whatever looks popular for Twitter at the time. No forethought at all.

Tough decisions will have to be taken where the coalition kicked cans down the road. To give them credit, or perhaps recognise blind luck, they knew they could spend a year out of administration and let the Conservatives fix their mess – allowing them to slate us in the public domain and escape scot-free from the consequences. There is no better scapegoat than a Conservative, it seems. There is a storm brewing in Southend, and it will shine a light on the previous administration…

Government must accelerate moves to net zero

• https://www.datawrapper.de/_/cyr7t/

Our polling research has found that 84.87% of respondents across all regions answered affirmatively, while 15.13% gave negative responses.

Breaking it down region by region:

• In the South East, 86.11% responded positively and 13.89% negatively.

• The West Midlands saw a high positive response rate of 91.30%, with 8.70% negative.

• In the East of England, 95.83% of respondents were positive, and 4.17% were negative.

• Wales reported a perfect score, with 100% affirmative responses.

• The East Midlands followed closely, with 96.00% positive and only 4.00% negative responses.

• In the South West, 86.67% responded affirmatively and 13.33% negatively.

• Yorkshire and the Humber had 89.66% positive responses and 10.34% negative.

• In Northern Ireland, the percentage of positive responses dropped to 71.43%, with 28.57% negative.

• The North West had one of the lower positive response rates at 63.33%, and 36.67% negative.

• Scotland performed well, with 88.89% positive and 11.11% negative.

• In the North East, 86.67% responded positively, and 13.33% negatively.

• London saw 75.00% of positive responses, with 25.00% negative.

• The British Islands showed an even split, with 50.00% positive and 50.00% negative responses.

Millbank polling - on think tanks

A majority (59%) of the British public believe think tanks are not transparent, with only 19% of respondents disagreeing, Deltapoll polling for Centre and Millbank has found.

• https://bylinetimes.com/2023/11/03/time-to-tackle-dark-money-in-politics-as-voters-demand-transparency-over-britains-opaque-think-tanks/

Things Look good for labour

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/new-polling-suggests-labour-left-is-sticking-by-starmer-341534/

Public Support Strikes

Polling for our clients shows the need for strike action.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/09/britain-winter-strikes-public-support-public-sector-workers

Millbank Supports launch of Toht - Social Impact Consultacy

Toht is a social impact consultancy helping address some of today’s most pressing challenges, from the refugee crisis to climate change.

The event was launched in collaboration with King’s College London and the International Orgnaisation for Peacebuilding and Social Justice.

The International Organisation for Peace-building & Social Justice (PSJ UK) is a non-profit organisation that seeks to promote peace-building, social justice, and sustainable development.

The future is local... if we’re brave enough!

Dr Paul Harvey, Leader of the Council, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council

Local Government’s relationship with Central Government remains a tense affair. Issues prevalent in the national news such as funding and the ongoing crisis in social care leave a bitter taste for councils up and down the country, as they seek to stay afloat and cope with the fallout in their communities of the multiplicity of complex problems we’re living all through.

This is not a party political battle, nor is it necessarily ideological. This is one born of a fundamental imbalance of power between local and national sovereignty. Central Government simple does not understand nor does it want to learn about Local Government. It dominates the relationship with contempt and ignorance for Local Government.

That councils are forced to lay out budget proposals before government has decided what their central funding may or not be is ludicrous. We need a far more mature relationship. 

Back in 2014 the Localism Act appeared derived of a policy paper that sought to begin to redress the imbalance. It failed because Central Government cannot help itself from interfering. 

I remember a debate in the heady days of New Labour when Tony Blair was accosted outside a hospital by an angry voter. He personally took responsibility for the failings of the health service that voter had suffered. Government has come to represent the focal point for the failure of all forms of governance and service delivery in the country. There is no local accountability anymore. Our national political discourse has become transactional, from the living room direct to Downing Street.

There is a fundamental failing at the heart of our democracy. We can talk about broken public services, stretched national finances, a BREXIT fallout and post pandemic economic malaise, but the essential point is that the root cause of so much of the failure lies at the heart of our ailing democracy. 

We need to reinvigorate our democracy. From that renewal we can find solutions to some of the most intractable problems society faces. From health, education, justice to local government the solutions rest in the professionals running those same essential areas of the state.

At the heart of the debate is the affirmation of democracy resting with the people, not in the government itself. In essence democracy of, by and for the people should mean exactly that and it is the state’s, both central and local, role to defend those ‘natural’ rights.

We have become accustomed to being governed and giving our consent. We acquiesce and take a minimal part in the business of governance. We look to be led and when the quality of that leadership is lacking it exposes the frailties of the system designed to empower the representatives and executive who govern in our name. 

Traditions of government and civil bureaucracy have been developed over the last two centuries to the point that the body of government is itself a beast, a monolith, that perpetuates itself. It justifies itself and its power by virtue of its being. The disconnection from people and their lives is found in the centralisation of that power. There are different pressures pulling the state apart and at the same time focusing power at the centre. The emergence of regional mayors and of devolved assemblies has augmented local government, but power and financial control are retained largely at the centre of Whitehall in London. These so-called devolved bodies are tinkering around the edges of the fundamental seat of power sited in Whitehall.

Subsidiarity is a forgotten principle that most governments preach when in opposition and misplace when in power. The ideas of localism are only as good as a government willing to let its power go and allow variation and dissent.

Our vote matters only when it counts in the margins and in modern UK politics some votes matter more than others in a first past the post electoral system that sees those seeking power fight over an increasingly narrow selection of society. Disconnection is real when you feel your vote and voice do not matter. 

In the late Victorian era, great civic edifices, like Manchester City Hall, were built that reflected the power of the age divested in places like Manchester. London was powerful, but it was not the only centre of power. Now London eclipses the rest of the country and as such the dichotomy between the capital and the country is stark. Division is worse in places like Boston or Clacton because democracy means little to people when it is remote to them and meaningless.

If a vote had value in changing the condition of people it would transform people’s value in it. Localism is not about simply devolving power, although to begin with that would be a solid start, it is also about enabling the quality of local leadership to take up that power and be effective. We have seen such a hollowing out of local government over decades that this cultural shift we are speaking of here will require time and faith because things will not transform overnight and mistakes will be made.

One size fits all electoral boundaries only serve to draw lines on maps, but genuine coalitions of interest and need can better reflect local priorities. The centre must give up power and devolve this to local government. The danger is that the centre determines the shape of local government.

The evolution of local democracy has to come from the ground up. It has to be functional, it needs to be accountable and it has to deliver results that make a difference to people’s lives. While the centre might establish principles such as a proportional voting system, or codes of conduct, the essential point of subsidiarity needs to be unleashed. Greater Manchester is not rural Lincolnshire, and therefore devolution of democracy has to reflect natural communities.

We should start with a new Localism Act designed with local government, not something done to us, but a new democratic settlement that enshrines a new relationship set down in law as equals.

Broken Britain can only be repaired if we start with our systems of governance and allow a new mature and equal relationship to take root. If we then tend that new growth of innovation and professionalism at a local level the centre might just benefit too from a renewal of faith in what difference politics can mean for people.

How to fix the housing crisis – before we’re bankrupt

David Taylor, Councillor, London Borough of Havering

Over the last 3 years' it has become clear that the slow dismantling of the private-rented sector (PRS), and the freeze of the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is crippling local government. Havering council is months away from bankruptcy and both policies are playing a part. 

The financial crisis that has engulfed this council didn't happen overnight. It's the result of a series of unfortunate events and missteps that have left the council scrambling to stay afloat.

In April 2020 an apparently Conservative government decided that there needed to be an increase in taxes on landlords. The idea was simple, mortgages were no longer tax-deductible. The impact on the PRS was huge and it’s lead to thousands of homes no longer being available for affordable rent.

With a deposit of 35% for a buy-to-let in the borough, a landlord is looking at a mortgage of around £170,000 and rental income of around £1251 a month. At current rates, after paying a mortgage, the landlord is going to walk home with a little over £100 ‘profit’.

Even with a mortgage at half the cost, a profit of £600 is going to then have 40% of it taken away by the tax man.

Would you want to be a landlord, to a social housing tenant, for an extra £200-£300 a month?

Representatives from the National Association of Property Buyers estimates that as many as 100,000 PRS are quitting the market every year. [1]

Between 2019-2020, Havering council 240 Havering residents were able to find a PRS property through the council’s ‘find your own’ scheme. That figure is now down to 150, 90 families that Havering now needs to find homes for.

This new tax on landlords has stripped the market of available homes to rent and pushed the burden directly onto local authorities. In 2019 Havering had just 3 hotel bookings for residents, a figure that is now at close to 400.

Just for a moment, consider the cost of that to the Borough, to local taxpayers, in a borough 6 months away from bankruptcy. Havering is spending close to £4m a year on hotels, whilst have to make difficult decisions to cut spending on special needs support.

The Local Housing Allowance (LHA) freeze has made things even worse. Had there been properties available they would not be affordable.

LHA, or ‘housing benefit’ for a 2 bed home was at £1147 a month after the 2020 uplift. With Havering’s average rent for a 2 bed being £1189, families had to find just £42 a month in order to rent a home.

That figure is now as high as £350 a month, something unachievable for our most vulnerable and a problem that is again adding to the pressure of local authorities. Unable to afford to rent on LHA, Havering council is having to house these residents I hotels and B&Bs.

Compounding on that problem is the fact that Havering has a rapidly growing young population, with a 15% growth in under 18’s between the last two censuses. It means we’re growing fast, a lot of our population are not I the workforce, and the most vulnerable are being placed in unsuitable hotels and B&Bs.

This isn’t just a Havering problem. It is one that is reflected across the whole of the UK and it’s one that should have been predicted had the government been paying attention.

It was always going to be the case that over-taxing landlords and increasing red-tape around evictions would cause many to leave the market. Perhaps someone in Whitehall calculated for this and came to the conclusion that the increased tax revenue, if there was any, was worth it?

Perhaps the same Whitehall team also calculated a massive saving by freezing LHA at 2020 rates, despite there being clear evidence of dwindling supply meaning rising costs.

I’d like to meet that Whitehall team, or Number 10 team, and I’d like to ask them what they thought the impact would be on local government. Did they think that local authorities had the capacity to pick up the slack? Did they think that there was a glut of social housing available in places like Havering?

Unfortunately, it looks like the Conservative government has pursued an un-conservative policy. By ignoring the reality that raising taxes stifles investment, they pushed on. They pursued socialist policies that pushed people away from the private sector and into the arms of the government.

“I’m from the government, I’m here to help”, we all know the joke. The problem is that it isn’t a joke. Local government can no longer help, it cannot foot the bill. We are now at the point of stripping back on special needs provision.

Labour, and others, will tell you that the solution is simple. “build more homes”. But this ignores a very important fact. People can’t live in a housing target.

Building more is a long-term solution and one that no government ever seems to achieve.

We need an urgent fix.

We must get private landlords back into the market, by reintroducing mortgage tax relief and reducing red-tape.

We must also unfreeze the LHA, so that the burden no longer falls on local authorities.

In a few months time, Havering council may find itself calling in Government bods. Should they arrive, they will find a mess of government making.

£4m a year a is being spent housing Havering’s most vulnerable in hotels and B&Bs. That’s crippling.

*for the number geeks amongst you. Havering has 388 hotel bookings. If all of these needed a 3 bed home, the required rise in LHA would be around £2million a year. Half the cost of keeping the families in hotels.

Council Scrambling to Avoid Bankruptcy

David Taylor, Councillor, London Borough of Havering

The financial crisis continues to grip local authorities across the UK, with many struggling to balance their budgets and avoid bankruptcy. One such council facing this dire situation is currently in the midst of making some tough decisions in order to stay afloat. In Havering, with an estimated £12 million in cuts on the table, the council is facing an uphill battle to maintain essential services for its residents.

The financial crisis that has engulfed this council didn't happen overnight. It's the result of a series of unfortunate events and missteps that have left the council scrambling to stay afloat.

One of the main contributing factors to the council's dire financial situation is a decline in funding from the central government. Over the years, the government has been tightening its purse strings, forcing local authorities to shoulder more of the financial burden. This council, like many others, has been hit hard by this shift in funding responsibilities.

Additionally, the council made some questionable financial decisions in the past that have come back to haunt them. One major blunder was an ill-fated investment in a local development project that ended up going belly-up. This left the council with a significant loss and a black mark on their financial record.

Furthermore, the council has been grappling with rising costs in essential services such as social care and waste management. As the demand for these services has increased, so have the costs associated with providing them. With limited funding and a growing population, the council has found itself caught between a rock and a hard place.

Another factor that has exacerbated the council's financial woes is a decrease in revenue from local sources. Business closures and a struggling local economy have led to a decrease in business rates and council tax income. This loss of revenue has left the council with fewer funds to allocate to crucial services and programs.

It's clear that this council's financial crisis is the result of a perfect storm of external factors, poor decision-making, and economic challenges. As they navigate their way through these turbulent waters, it's important to acknowledge the complex nature of the crisis and the need for long-term solutions.

In the next section, we will delve into the specifics of the proposed £12 million cuts that the council is considering in an effort to balance its budget and avoid bankruptcy. These cuts, while necessary from a financial standpoint, will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences for local services and the community as a whole. Let's explore the details in the next section.

As the council desperately searches for ways to balance its budget and avoid bankruptcy, the proposed £12 million worth of cuts have been a topic of great concern and debate. These austerity measures are seen as a necessary evil in order to ensure the financial stability of the council. However, they also raise important questions about the impact they will have on local services and the lives of the residents.

One of the areas that will be heavily affected by these cuts is social care. With a growing elderly population and increased demand for care services, it's clear that difficult choices will have to be made. The council is considering reducing funding for home care services, which would result in fewer hours of care for vulnerable individuals. This could mean that elderly residents will be left without the support they desperately need, putting their health and well-being at risk.
Another area that will see significant cuts is education. The council is considering reducing funding for schools, which could result in larger class sizes, fewer resources, and potentially even school closures. This not only has a direct impact on the quality of education that children receive but also on the livelihoods of teachers and staff who may face redundancies.

In addition to social care and education, other essential services are also on the chopping block. Waste management services may be reduced, leading to longer wait times for rubbish collection and increased litter and environmental concerns. Leisure and recreation facilities, such as libraries and community centers, may face closure or reduced operating hours, depriving residents of important social and educational resources.

These cuts will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences for the community as a whole. They will not only impact the most vulnerable members of society but also affect the everyday lives of all residents. From longer wait times for essential services to reduced access to public amenities, the effects of these cuts will be felt by everyone.

While the proposed £12 million cuts may provide some temporary relief to the council's financial crisis, it's important to consider the long-term implications. By reducing funding for essential services, the council may be jeopardizing the well-being and future of its residents. Finding alternative solutions and exploring other avenues for revenue generation should be a priority to avoid a further decline in the quality of life for those who call this area home.

In the next section, we will delve into the reactions from stakeholders and the community, shedding light on their concerns and proposed alternatives to these austerity measures. Stay tuned to understand the impact that these cuts may have on the council's relationship with its residents and the wider community.

As the council considers implementing £12 million worth of cuts to its budget, the impact on local services and residents cannot be ignored. These austerity measures have the potential to drastically alter the everyday lives of the community, and the consequences are far-reaching.

One of the most concerning areas that will be affected by these cuts is social care. With a growing elderly population and an increased demand for care services, any reduction in funding will have serious repercussions. The proposed reduction in funding for home care services could result in fewer hours of care for vulnerable individuals. This means that elderly residents may be left without the support they desperately need, putting their health and well-being at risk. The consequences of such a reduction in social care services cannot be overstated, as it directly affects some of the most vulnerable members of the community.

Education is another sector that will bear the brunt of these cuts. With the council considering a reduction in funding for schools, there is a genuine concern over the quality of education that children will receive. Larger class sizes, fewer resources, and potential school closures all have a direct impact on the educational experience of the students. Moreover, these cuts may lead to job losses for teachers and staff, further destabilizing the local workforce.
It's not just social care and education that will be affected. Other essential services, such as waste management, leisure, and recreation facilities, are also on the chopping block. Reductions in waste management services could mean longer wait times for rubbish collection, leading to increased litter and environmental concerns. Closure or reduced operating hours of libraries and community centers will deprive residents of important social and educational resources. These cuts have the potential to create a ripple effect, impacting the overall well-being and quality of life in the community.

While the proposed £12 million cuts may provide temporary relief to the council's financial crisis, it is essential to consider the long-term implications. By reducing funding for essential services, the council risks compromising the well-being and future of its residents. It is crucial to explore alternative solutions and avenues for revenue generation to avoid further decline in the quality of life for those who call this area home.

The effects of these cuts will be felt by everyone in the community. From longer wait times for essential services to reduced access to public amenities, the repercussions are widespread. It is vital that the council takes into account the potential consequences of these cuts and seeks alternatives to minimize the negative impact on local services and residents. Collaborative efforts and creative solutions are needed to ensure that the community can continue to thrive despite the financial challenges.

As news of the council's proposed £12 million cuts spread throughout the community, stakeholders and residents were quick to voice their concerns and frustrations. The reactions from various groups and individuals highlight the deep impact that these austerity measures could have on the local area.
Many residents, particularly those who rely on social care services, expressed fear and anxiety about the potential cuts. They worry about the reduced hours of care that vulnerable individuals may receive, and the detrimental effect it could have on their health and well-being. Families with elderly relatives are especially concerned, as they fear their loved ones will be left without the necessary support. Numerous petitions and protests have already sprung up, with residents demanding that the council find alternative ways to balance its budget without compromising essential services.

Teachers, staff, and parents are also highly vocal about the proposed cuts to education. They worry about larger class sizes, diminished resources, and the potential closure of schools. Teachers fear losing their jobs, and parents are concerned about the quality of education that their children will receive. This has sparked widespread discussions and debates, as stakeholders explore ways to preserve the quality of education and ensure the well-being of both students and educators.

Beyond social care and education, there is a shared sense of disappointment among residents who value essential services such as waste management, leisure, and recreation facilities. The potential reduction in waste management services, longer wait times for rubbish collection, and closures of libraries and community centers have been met with frustration. Many residents argue that these services are vital for their daily lives and the overall well-being of the community.

However, it is important to note that not all reactions to the proposed cuts have been negative. Some individuals understand the financial challenges the council faces and recognize the need for difficult decisions. They emphasize the importance of finding a balance between financial stability and maintaining essential services. These voices often call for open dialogue between the council and the community, encouraging collaboration to explore alternative solutions that may minimize the impact on local services and residents.

As this council grapples with its current financial crisis, it's crucial to look ahead and consider the future implications and long-term strategies that can help prevent similar struggles down the line. While the proposed £12 million cuts may provide some temporary relief, it's important to address the underlying issues and find sustainable solutions to ensure the council's financial stability and the well-being of its residents.

One key aspect to consider is the need for a diversified revenue stream. Relying solely on central government funding and local sources, such as business rates and council tax, can leave local authorities vulnerable to economic downturns and shifts in government priorities. Exploring alternative sources of income, such as partnerships with local businesses or investment in revenue-generating initiatives, could provide a more stable financial foundation.

In addition to diversifying revenue, long-term financial planning is essential. It's important for councils to create realistic and sustainable budgets that account for potential economic challenges and changes in demand for essential services. This involves carefully analyzing expenditure, identifying areas for potential savings, and making strategic investments that have long-term benefits.

Moreover, engaging with the community and stakeholders in decision-making processes is crucial. By fostering a sense of ownership and involvement, councils can tap into the collective knowledge and creativity of their residents. This can lead to innovative solutions and a stronger sense of community ownership and responsibility for the local area's financial stability.

Investing in preventative measures is also important. Proactive approaches to addressing potential financial crises can help councils avoid reaching a point of dire straits. By regularly assessing financial risks, monitoring expenditure, and making timely adjustments, councils can prevent small issues from snowballing into full-blown crises.

Collaboration between councils is another avenue to explore. By sharing resources, expertise, and best practices, councils can support one another in navigating financial challenges. This can lead to cost savings, increased efficiency, and a stronger collective voice when advocating for fair funding from the central government.

Lastly, it's essential to prioritize the well-being and needs of residents when making financial decisions. Balancing budgets should not come at the expense of essential services and the quality of life for local communities. Maintaining a focus on delivering crucial services, such as social care, education, and waste management, is essential for creating thriving communities and ensuring the long-term sustainability of local authorities.

While the future may seem uncertain for this council facing £12 million in cuts, there are strategies and approaches that can help prevent similar financial struggles in the long run. By diversifying revenue streams, engaging the community, investing in preventative measures, collaborating with other councils, and prioritizing the well-being of residents, this council and others like it can build a more resilient and financially stable future.

Where’s the Money?

James Barber, Councillor, Cheshire East

From the inception of Cheshire East in 2009, it has been a Council that has struggled to stay out of the headlines. Police investigations, dodgy deals and all sorts of negative publicity have clouded the reputation of the unitary authority. Now, however, it's not the controversies that are damaging the authority – it’s the lack of central government funding.

Now when you mention Cheshire, most associate it with affluent towns such as Alderley Edge and Prestbury. The reality is far starker, with towns like Crewe and Macclesfield having some of the worst deprivation rates in the North. The misconception of Cheshire East as being an overall wealthy borough is one that unfortunately goes against the truth. As a result, a lot of the time we get hung out to dry with a lack of funding from the central Government.

In January, a levelling-up bid to make public realm improvements to the town centre of Macclesfield was rejected by the Government. Similarly, Crewe also received nothing from its bid. When Crewe put in an excellent bid to become the home of Great British Rail – nothing. HS2 – a vital cog in the mission to transform Crewe and instigate wider economic regeneration to the town: delayed.

Doubts remain as to whether it will ever even reach Crewe, and if you go to Crewe Railway Station, you’ll see just how important it is. The Crewe Station Hub is vital to securing the long-term future of the dilapidated station, and the longer the delay to HS2, the worse the situation will get. These infrastructure bids and projects are sadly just the crux of the matter.

In December 2022, it was reported that Cheshire East Council needed to raise at least £20m of savings or else it would potentially have gone bankrupt. The cost-of-living crisis, ever-growing Social Care costs and inflation have all contributed, along with a lack of adequate central government funding.

This has led to increased council tax, green bin waste collection charges and cuts to some services. Whilst the Government made a point of how they wouldn’t increase taxation – they simultaneously allowed local authorities to increase council tax – thus passing the buck down to them to get the blame. This is wholly unacceptable but sadly demonstrative of the way local authorities are viewed.

As a former Cheshire East Councillor, elected aged 18 in 2019 and serving until the end of my term in 2023, I was able to represent residents and be their voice on the Council. And when I reluctantly voted to increase Council tax, I did so not just as a Councillor in recognition of the dire need for more money to keep essential services running, but also as a resident. I voted to make not just my community worse off, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, but myself also. People often forget this element of a Councillor's role, but that’s a conversation for another piece…

Now, as a Macclesfield Town Councillor since May 2023, I am seeing things from an even more interesting perspective, as Cheshire East are being forced, in turn, to pass the buck down to us for some services. With the Government seemingly not interested in supporting them, and as a unitary authority being able to only fund so much, they’ve asked Town Councils to step in and fund some services.

Before my term on MTC, they already agreed to ‘top-up’ the Winter Gritting scheme to ensure some of the most dangerous roads in Macclesfield do not go ungritted. And now, they’re asking Town and Parish Councils to top-up library funding – or else opening hours would be reduced. It is to Cheshire East’s credit that they managed to secure the ongoing opening of libraries as it is (with this being a service that has been decimated across the country over the past decade), but it’s a terrible shame that we, as a Town Council, are being asked to divert some of our budget to pay for services that Cheshire East have previously provided as the unitary authority for the borough.

We only have limited funds as it is, most of which go towards vital community grants and hosting brilliant free events – so we rejected the proposal to top-up the library’s opening hours as we simply don’t have the money to do so.

There is a clear argument that is being made by many local representatives that whilst there is no Cheshire & Warrington devolution deal, we get nothing but crumbs. Manchester has recently got its trailblazing devolution deal and continues to go from strength to strength, but Cheshire gets very little. We are often forgotten about and left behind.

Whilst there are of course some political tensions surrounding a devolution deal, it was welcome that in June, Cheshire and Warrington representatives met with Dehenna Davison, the Levelling Up minister, to discuss devolution for the region – with a level two + deal being ideal in that it would grant level three powers without a Mayoral Combined Authority. This appears to be the consensus from the three Council’s fighting for devolution, and one can only hope progress continues.

But in the meantime, to focus back on Cheshire East, whilst the misconceptions remain of us being a largely affluent borough, so will the lack of support. Cheshire East has been largely ignored by Westminster – the same as our neighbours in Cheshire West & Chester, and Warrington. The authority is gaining wider support and credibility as time progresses, with the Rail & HS2 Minister, Huw Merriman MP recently visiting Crewe and the Council’s presence on regional board’s growing. This progress is welcomed, but not enough.

Cheshire East is, as a local authority, doing everything it can to survive. Now, the central government must step up and fix the social care funding crisis to alleviate the immense pressures this causes, and finally break the habit of a lifetime and ensure truly fair, transparent funding to Councils across the country.