The Guardian view on councils in need: voters should be told what the parties’ plans are | Editorial

Wellfrom social care to special educational needs and homelessness, many of the most pressing challenges for public services face local rather than national government. Some of these are very visible and obvious: rising numbers of rough sleepers, deteriorating roads, hospital waiting lists caused in part by a lack of social care. Other problems are more hidden than those affected. Examples include the worsening crisis in residential child care and a huge number of families in temporary accommodation.

English councils bore the brunt of some of the earliest and deepest public spending cuts under austerity (local government functions and budgets are devolved, so the situation in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is different). Between 2010-11 and 2019-20, central government funding was cut by 55% in real terms.

Budgets have increased since then. The current spending review period, which runs to 2024-25, has seen an increase of 26%. But the growing need for local services means local government finances are being squeezed and stretched. In some places they are at or above the breaking point. Last year Birmingham issued a Section 114 notice signaling that it could not balance its budget and was effectively bankrupt.

Discretionary services were hit even harder than statutory ones, such as social care, which councils are required to provide. In the three years to 2019, youth services were cut by an average of 40%, with some MPs drawing links to knife crime. Parks, recreation centers and libraries are all affected and in some cases lost, leaving the public realm diminished and communities worse off.

No one denies that councils are under pressure. Most politicians agree that new mechanisms are needed to finance social care in particular. Yet the election campaign is worryingly devoid of clear messages regarding local government budgets, as new analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies states. Unlike in 2019, the main parties have not committed to future grants (which make up around 15% of council funding, with 57% coming from council tax and the rest from business rates).

They did not say whether municipal funding would be a priority or whether local government could face higher-than-average cuts. Nor have they indicated whether they will remove a rule that forces councils to hold referendums if they want to increase council tax by more than 3% or 5% (depending on whether they have social care obligations). The result is that voters are in the dark about the future of some of the services that matter most to them. This is what the Association of Local Authorities believes £6 billion of extra funding is needed over two years to close the gap.

Councils in the most deprived areas face the most difficulties. Reform of the outdated, regressive council tax must be part of any serious equalization programme. Redistribution of resources between districts should be facilitated. But while Labor and the Liberal Democrats have promised multi-year settlements that make it easier for municipalities to plan, nor have they offered the comprehensive overhaul that is needed. The Tories promise a multi-year deal on social care alone.

If Angela Rayner becomes Communities Secretary after a Labor victory, renewing the relationship between central and local government must be high on her agenda. Meanwhile, the lack of budget transparency is bad for councils and bad for democracy. Voters should be able to make an informed choice, not be left guessing.