Title

FINANCE

We need to resist the creep of pork barrel politics

The 'creep of increasingly overt pork barrel politics into our winner-takes-all electoral system ultimately benefits no-one', says Jessica Studdert.

Conservative leadership candidate Rishi Sunak's recent comments to the Tunbridge Wells party faithful simply voiced a policy that has been operating on the QT for years.

The Conservative party in power has reduced the deprivation weighting in local funding formulas, because they tended to benefit larger urban areas, which are largely Labour-controlled. They see this as reversing a method inherited from Labour's time in Government and re-calculating it to benefit their heartlands. Not that the electorate in the shires particularly noticed, since like everywhere else they too have witnessed significant local funding cuts overall.

But it is a measure in-keeping with the Conservative Government's subsequent bias – through its flagship Levelling Up funds – towards their Red Wall seats, over other deprived areas which are represented by Labour in Parliament. So, what would Labour do if it assumed power at Westminster? Reverse the trend again and channel local funding according to their own electoral calculations?

This creep of increasingly overt pork barrel politics into our winner-takes-all electoral system ultimately benefits no-one. It is a symptom of our fragile local financing system that the principles behind it can be determined more by the whims of the national party in power than the needs of people who rely on local services.

Currently, every type of council can reasonably claim a raw deal. Urban councils have faced disproportionate cuts amidst densely concentrated deprivation. Counties and large unitaries face the opposite problem: significant diseconomies of scale at which they must operate social services for vulnerable groups, which often includes larger elderly populations than younger cities. Meanwhile, many districts have seen their grant reduce to zero.

Before we even get into the question of distribution, resource scarcity overall is the main problem. An independent commission to reach an objective, non-partisan view on local government financing is long overdue. The elusive Fair Funding Review keeps being postponed because no-one can agree what ‘fair' means in the context of not enough in the first place.

The sector should stand together to demand sufficient funding for all parts of the country as a priority, with different dimensions of ‘need' recognised and provided for. Then the residents of Tunbridge Wells, along with the most deprived boroughs and everywhere in between, can feel the benefit from a system that properly responds to their varied circumstances.

Jessica Studdert is deputy chief executive at New Local

@jessstud

FINANCE

The new fire and rehire regime: what you need to know

By Anna Scott | 12 September 2025

Rebecca McGuirk and Anna Scott look at details of the Employment Rights Bill and say if there are plans to vary terms and conditions over the next few months...

FINANCE

Rethinking long-term community investment

By Nick Kemp | 10 September 2025

As the UK Shared Prosperity Fund ends and the Growth Mission Fund and trailblazer neighbourhoods emerge, Nick Kemp explores how councils can embrace adaptive...

FINANCE

Reform UK Conference - serious contenders or still a one-man band?

By Nathan Emmerich | 08 September 2025

Reform UK’s conference was a missed opportunity to address Britain’s pressing issues head-on, with glaring policy omissions, such as the NHS and adult social...

FINANCE

How councils will fare under Fair Funding 2.0

By Jonathan Meek | 04 September 2025

Simon Christian and Jonathan Meek analyse the impact of the Fair Funding Review 2.0 on different council types and highlight the winners and losers among the...

Jessica Studdert

Popular articles by Jessica Studdert