Why do they have to fork out more tax to the town council to take over street cleaning and grass cutting from Wiltshire Council?
If Wiltshire hands over the job to Trowbridge, why don't they hand over the money to pay for it?
It's a very good question and like many simple questions it doesn't have a simple answer. Perhaps the quickest is just that you get what you pay for. Wiltshire's services have been struggling for years and if Trowbridge wants clean streets and well kept parks, we need to pay to do the job well.
But it still seems unfair and so the longer answer is worth setting out. It explains a few home truths about the way the country is run and why towns like Trowbridge need to take control of their own affairs if they want to make sure things are run better.
The answer starts a long time ago and a long way away, with the financial crash of 2007-08 that began in the USA. This happened because banks in America and the UK lent people money they couldn't repay and took excessive risks. Governments then had to bail many of them out to stop them going bust and losing people's savings. That meant the incoming UK government in 2010 had a massive deficit to pay off. They could have done this by raising taxes, cutting spending, or both. And they mainly chose to cut spending. Remember 'austerity'?
In particular, they slashed the amount of money provided to local councils from central government - by 37% between 2010 and 2020. That's just the average. For councils like Wiltshire, the cut was closer to 50%. Councils also get money from council tax and business rates, but the cut in grants has meant overall average spending power has fallen by 16%. over the last decade.
Demand for care
Government resources have been reduced even more in recent years, such as in 2018 when Philip Hammond handed out big tax cuts, particularly for the well-off. COVID-19 has since meant higher Government spending, but to cope with the pandemic, not to solve the deeper issues. The lesson is obvious. If you take money out of public funds - whether at the top in Westminster, or the bottom in Trowbridge - you get worse public services.
Smart politics, bad government
It's smart politics. Westminster gets the credit for lower taxes while town and county halls get the blame for the ragged services. But it's bad government. It leaves the old and vulnerable at risk. It forces councils to focus money on 'must-do's that directly affect those people's lives - like care, fostering and mental health. And activities like street sweeping and grass cutting get pushed down the priority order.
So that's why a town council like Trowbridge has a choice. Do nothing and see the area become shabbier every year. Or take on the job and do it properly. It does cost a bit more, but really we're just seeing chickens coming home to roost as the lowest level of local government picks up the bill for the cuts made by governments years ago.
On the bright side….
Taxes are never welcome, but as the American judge Oliver Wendell Holmes said "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society" - or in this case for the county town we deserve.
P.S. My party, the Liberal Democrats, was part of the 2010-15 government that started the local government funding cuts. For the record, I didn't support joining the coalition - but it was a very tough call. By way of balance, the Lib Dems pushed through the pupil premium, tax cuts for the less well-off and a record increase in clean electricity.
P.P.S. We Brits pay less in tax than many other countries - but we often get worse services. Tax revenue makes up 35% of the UK economy whereas it's more like 45% in Denmark or France - but those countries have very high quality health, education and care, plus generous pensions.