Mailwatch(ed) Forum

What are people's thoughts on this?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... rty-levels

However, the IFS said it was “surprising” there was not a stronger deprivation effect: “Despite … an expectation that deprived and urban areas would win at the expense of more affluent and rural areas, the government’s baseline funding reform proposals are not particularly redistributive to poor, urban areas of England.”

Councils in the north and Midlands with the highest deprivation scores such as Blackpool, Bradford, Middlesbrough, and Wolverhampton are gainers, while some of the biggest losers are affluent Surrey, Wokingham, and Windsor and Maidenhead.

Overall, about one in four councils would have a real-terms fall in funding over the next three years, with 30 facing cuts of 11-12%, the IFS estimates. At the other end of the scale about 25% of authorities would have funding increases of 12% or more.

Labour-controlled central London boroughs such as Camden, Islington, Wandsworth, and Hammersmith and Fulham could face real-terms cuts in funding of up to 12% over the next three years – possibly reflecting technically lower deprivation scores in recent years as a result of demographic changes and gentrification.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 10:05 pm And of course, if all that money were raised, the first thing it's going to be doing is filling a fiscal hole, not taking anyone out of poverty.

Paying down debt to reduce interest payments is a defacto public spending increase.
Though so much of this raises more questions above my head that I want to ask economists. Like; if increasing the money supply isn’t inflationary when there's a corresponding increase in goods and services, why can't you print money to pay to produce cars (or any other product)? And give them away to disgruntled junior doctors and Birmingham bin collectors.