Andy Burnham eviscerated for new ‘spiteful class war’ on wealthy councils
Andy Burnham has come under fire over accusations that his Government is waging a “spiteful class war” on Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils, with critics warning that changes to local authority funding could leave residents facing higher taxes and reduced services.
The row centres on a reported redistribution of Government grants that would see Conservative and Liberal Democrat-controlled councils lose hundreds of millions of pounds in funding over the current Parliament, while Labour-run authorities receive a substantial increase.
Analysis of House of Commons data by The Telegraph suggests Conservative-controlled councils in England could see their Government-controlled funding fall from £4.4billion this year to £4.1billion in 2028/29. Liberal Democrat councils are projected to see their funding decline from £3.9billion to £3.7billion over the same period.
By contrast, Labour-controlled councils are reportedly set to receive an increase from £10.8billion to £12.3billion.
The figures have triggered accusations from opposition politicians and local authority leaders that the Government is favouring councils run by its own party at the expense of political opponents.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch launched a particularly sharp attack, describing the changes as an attempt to take money away from councils that have been run by Conservatives and redistribute it to Labour authorities.
“Labour’s spiteful class war continues – they just can’t help themselves,” Ms Badenoch told The Telegraph.
“A Labour Government taking money away from Conservative-run councils to hand it to their own is like financial gerrymandering. And it’s ordinary people who will pay the price in higher council tax and worse services, through no fault of their own.”
The accusation raises a politically sensitive question for Burnham’s administration: whether its proposed approach to distributing public money represents a legitimate attempt to address unequal levels of need across England or an unfair penalty on councils whose finances are considered comparatively well managed.
The Government rejects the suggestion that the funding changes are designed to punish opposition-controlled authorities. Ministers argue that the existing system is outdated and that public money should be allocated more closely according to deprivation and the demands placed on local services.
Nevertheless, the projected changes have intensified tensions between Westminster and local government, particularly in areas where councils say they are already struggling to maintain essential services.
Conservative councils accuse Labour of financial gerrymandering
The strongest criticism has come from councils facing reductions in their expected Government funding.
Steven Broadbent, leader of Conservative-run Buckinghamshire Council, accused Burnham of applying his promise of economic growth inconsistently.
The Prime Minister has previously pledged to deliver “good growth in every postcode”, a commitment intended to demonstrate that economic progress should not be confined to a handful of prosperous regions.
But Mr Broadbent suggested the proposed funding arrangements contradicted that ambition.
The Prime Minister has been slammed for launching a ‘class war’ on political opponents (Image: Getty)
He said the Prime Minister “apparently wants growth in every postcode, just not those where he’s not in control”.
The comment reflects a wider concern among opposition-controlled councils that the Government’s financial decisions could disadvantage communities regardless of their actual service needs.
Local authorities rely on Government grants, council tax and other income to finance services ranging from waste collection and road maintenance to social care, housing support and local planning.
When funding is reduced, councils may have to consider a combination of spending cuts, changes to service provision, asset sales and higher council tax, subject to the applicable legal and financial restrictions.
The consequences can be felt by residents even when a council has attempted to control its spending carefully.
Badenoch described the reported reductions as “outrageous”, pointing to the impact on Conservative-controlled Wandsworth. According to the figures cited in the report, the council could receive £84million less from the Government by the end of the decade.
Wandsworth has warned that it may need to raise council tax substantially in response, with a 94% increase expected in April, according to the source report.
That figure would represent a dramatic change for local taxpayers if implemented as described. However, the exact financial implications depend on the council’s final budget decisions, the relevant tax base and how any increase is applied.
Council tax decisions are made locally, within the legal framework governing local government finance. A reduction in central funding does not automatically require a council to raise bills by a particular percentage.
Nevertheless, the prospect of a significant increase illustrates the difficult choices facing authorities when their expected income falls but demand for essential services remains high.
For residents, the dispute over funding formulas could ultimately become a question of household finances: whether they pay more in council tax, receive fewer services or experience a combination of both.
Social housing projects face uncertainty
The controversy extends beyond day-to-day services, with concerns that funding pressure could affect longer-term investment in local communities.
Both Wandsworth and Conservative-run Tonbridge and Malling have reportedly delayed or cancelled social housing projects because of funding shortfalls.
Social housing schemes can require substantial upfront investment and long-term financial planning. When a council’s expected resources change, projects may be postponed while officials reassess affordability and competing priorities.
Such delays can have consequences for people waiting for affordable accommodation, particularly in areas where housing costs are high and demand for social housing exceeds available supply.
Matt Boughton, leader of Tonbridge and Malling Council, suggested the authority was being punished for its approach to managing public finances.
His criticism goes to the heart of the dispute. Councils that have attempted to keep budgets under control may argue that they should not lose funding simply because other areas face greater deprivation or financial pressures.
Kemi Badenoch described the cuts to Conservative councils as ‘outrageous’ (Image: Getty)
The Government, however, is defending a different principle: public funding should reflect need rather than simply preserve historical allocations.
Those two objectives can come into conflict. A system designed to direct more money towards deprived communities may reduce the resources available to councils in comparatively affluent areas, even if those councils face rising costs or significant local demands of their own.
The challenge is to establish a formula that recognises deprivation while also accounting for differences in population, service demand, local costs and councils’ ability to raise revenue.
Liberal Democrat council warns infrastructure is at risk
Liberal Democrat authorities have also raised concerns about the proposed redistribution, suggesting the dispute is not confined to Conservative councils.
Jeff Brooks, Liberal Democrat leader of West Berkshire Council, warned that local infrastructure was “at risk” because of the funding reductions.
Infrastructure spending can cover a wide range of responsibilities, including road repairs, public buildings, transport facilities and other assets needed to keep communities functioning. When budgets become tighter, councils may defer maintenance or delay improvements, potentially increasing costs in the longer term.
Road maintenance is one particularly visible area of local government spending. Residents often judge councils by the condition of local roads, the frequency of potholes and the speed with which repairs are completed.
Waste collection is similarly important. A reduction in resources does not automatically mean bins will go uncollected, but councils facing sustained financial pressure may need to reorganise services or make difficult savings elsewhere to protect them.
Local leaders have therefore warned that the consequences of the proposed changes could extend well beyond the political argument in Westminster.
The question is whether the new funding arrangements will give authorities sufficient resources to meet their statutory responsibilities and maintain services that residents rely on every day.
The Government insists its reforms will improve the relationship between funding and need. Opposition-controlled councils counter that a national formula cannot necessarily capture every local financial challenge.
Both arguments raise legitimate issues. Areas with higher deprivation may need additional public money to address greater demand for social care, housing support and other services. But councils in wealthier areas can also face expensive infrastructure obligations, rising operating costs and pressures on affordable housing.
A fair funding system must account for these competing demands rather than assume that every authority within a particular political or economic category has the same needs.
Birmingham set for biggest Labour funding increase
One of the most politically sensitive aspects of the reported figures is the projected increase for Labour-run Birmingham City Council.
The authority, which declared effective bankruptcy in 2023, is reportedly set to receive the largest increase among Labour-controlled councils.
Birmingham’s financial difficulties brought renewed attention to the pressures facing local government, including rising costs, historic liabilities and the challenge of maintaining services within available budgets.
The reported increase could provide additional resources to an authority facing significant financial demands. However, a larger grant does not in itself resolve the underlying causes of a council’s financial problems or guarantee that its recovery will be straightforward.
For Conservative critics, the contrast between Birmingham’s additional funding and reductions affecting opposition-controlled councils strengthens their argument that the Government is rewarding its own political allies.
Yet the fact that a council has experienced serious financial difficulties does not, by itself, establish that any additional funding is politically motivated. Ministers may argue that the allocation reflects the authority’s assessed needs and the costs of delivering services to its population.
To establish whether the distribution is fair, the relevant question is how the Government’s formula calculates need, which factors it takes into account and whether those criteria are applied consistently across councils regardless of party control.
The figures cited in the report indicate a substantial shift in the distribution of funding, but they do not alone demonstrate that political allegiance determines individual allocations.
Transparency over the methodology will therefore be essential if ministers want to counter accusations of favouritism and reassure councils that funding decisions are based on objective criteria.
Government defends funding overhaul
The Ministry of Housing, Local Government and Communities has rejected the criticism, arguing that the reforms are designed to correct longstanding weaknesses in the local government funding system.
A spokesperson said: “We’re fixing an outdated funding system so funding goes where need is greatest. As a result, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their need, up from only a third before our reforms, so they can deliver the high-quality public services local people need.”
The spokesperson added that the Government was making more than £78billion available for council finances this year, with most of the money not ring-fenced for specific purposes.
That approach is intended to give local leaders greater discretion over how they allocate resources according to local priorities.
Unring-fenced funding can allow councils to respond to pressures that differ from one community to another. One authority might need to prioritise social care, while another may face urgent housing or transport requirements.
However, the total amount available nationally does not necessarily determine whether every individual council has sufficient resources. The distribution between authorities is equally important, particularly when some councils expect their allocations to fall.
The Government’s claim that nine in 10 councils will receive funding broadly matched to their needs will therefore be central to its defence of the reforms. Ministers will need to explain how that assessment works and how they account for local circumstances that may not be immediately apparent from broad deprivation measures.
A political battle with real consequences for residents
The funding dispute comes as local authorities across England face difficult decisions about how to maintain services while managing financial pressures.
For Burnham’s Government, the stated objective is to direct resources towards areas where the need for public support is greatest. Ministers argue that maintaining an outdated distribution would leave some communities underfunded while failing to address inequalities.
For Badenoch and other opposition figures, the concern is that councils led by political opponents are being asked to absorb reductions that could affect residents through higher bills and reduced services.
The available figures do not, by themselves, prove that the Government is deliberately targeting councils because of their political control. Equally, the Government’s explanation does not remove the need to scrutinise how the changes will affect individual authorities and their residents.
The decisive test will be whether the new system distributes funding transparently, recognises genuine differences in need and allows councils to deliver essential services without imposing unreasonable burdens on local taxpayers.
If the reforms result in better-funded services in areas that have historically struggled to meet demand, ministers will argue that the changes have achieved their purpose. If councils facing reductions are forced to postpone housing projects, cut essential services or raise council tax sharply, opposition parties will use those outcomes to challenge the Government’s approach.
Ultimately, the argument is about more than which party controls a council. It concerns how public money is distributed, how local services are protected and whether residents can trust that decisions are being made according to need rather than political advantage.
Burnham now faces pressure to demonstrate that his promise of “good growth in every postcode” applies across political boundaries. For the councils concerned, the immediate priority is to understand their future budgets and determine how best to protect residents from the consequences of any funding shortfall.