The issue that won't go away after Shropshire Council elections
Almost four in every five pounds spent by Shropshire Council is on services like fostering children, residential care placements, homelessness and special educational needs.An average Band D property in this financial year will contribute £1,395 towards the service, plus an additional 2%, which is added on to council tax bills to spend specifically on social care.The council also receives grants and funding worth tens of millions of pounds from central government, but it is still not enough.In fact, 71% of councils overspent on their social care budgets in 2023/24, according to the Local Government Association.To meet the funding shortfall, other services, such as road maintenance and waste collections, have to be cut, or councils have to generate cash, such as Shropshire Council's £56 garden waste charge."Governments have pushed back decisions to do something about social care, to look at how it's going to be paid for," said Debbie Price, who is the chief executive of Coverage Care, which provides residential and nursing homes for 682 people across the county."We have got to the point with underinvestment and budget freezes that I genuinely believe that local authorities do not have the money they need in order to provide the services that the people in their communities require."A number of really good providers may no longer be able to trade unless central government steps up and does something about this," she added.
'A system fit for the future'
The proportion of the council's budget spent on social care has increased from 58% to 74% in the last eight years.This is partly due to an increase in the number of children in the care of Shropshire Council, although the rate is starting to slow and stabilise.As of October, 735 children were being cared for by the council – a rise from 399 in April 2020.Some of the reasons why more children are requiring social support include a greater awareness of abuse and neglect and also cost of living pressures, such as poverty and unemployment.Shropshire also has a much older population than England as a whole, with 44% of the county being over the age of 50.It's thought the county will have more than 15,000 over 85s by 2030.The government has boosted funding for social care authorities by £3.7bn this financial year and commissioned an independent review into a dedicated National Care Service "to build a system fit for the future that is fair and affordable for all", the Department of Health and Social Care said.The department hopes that some of the review's recommendations can be delivered before the next general election in 2029.In the meantime, the next council administration will continue to work with council officers to improve efficiencies.But if the demand for social care services continues to rise and the funding to pay for it does not keep up, then council leaders may have to find other services to cut to free up funds.These are often the services that residents interact with on a day-to-day basis, like road repairs, leisure centres and household recycling centres.
Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Money-printing has impoverished Britain and no one is accountable
Quantitative easing (QE) entered the lexicon in 2009 when, for reasons which remain obscure to this day, the world's Western central banks decided to push not only short-term rates, but also long-term interest rates to near-zero. It was a coordinated monetary response to the very severe 2008-9 global financial crisis. The Bank of England was an enthusiastic partner in this enterprise, singing the praises of the policy at the time. It argued it would pump money into the economy and hence stimulate economic activity in the post-credit crunch period when economic and investment confidence was low. How did QE work? Announced in March 2009, the Bank of England started buying long-dated bonds (mostly government bonds or gilts) to push down interest rates (by pushing up the price of the bonds). The Bank of England had already reduced the Bank Rate from 5.5pc at the start of 2008 to 0.5pc in March 2009. For most people, this was hard to understand, since it meant that governments issued debt which their central banks (guaranteed by the state) bought using money borrowed from commercial banks by way of a central bank 'overdraft'. The growing central bank overdraft was dressed up, presumably to reassure the public, as 'creating central bank reserves' – which sounds a lot better. If you're not confused already, then you're doing well. To summarise: QE involved rigging the government bond market so that interest rates were ultra-low, nearly zero, across the board, and in most of the developed Western economies. How did it work out for us in the UK? Well of course, this wasn't an experiment with a control, so we can't know definitively. But let's look at some sample figures – and start with economic growth. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), between 1958 and 2008, UK real growth per capita averaged 2.2pc per year. QE started in early 2009, so measuring from then, the real growth rate between 2009 and the end of QE in 2022 was about a quarter of the previous growth, at 0.6pc a year. Now there were lots of mitigating factors – such as the 2020-21 Covid crisis – but if we stop counting in 2019, to avoid the Covid years, growth between 2009 and 2019 was only 0.7pc a year. So we can't really blame Covid. So, the answer to the basic question, did QE promote growth?, is no. What about government prudence? In my opinion, by far the most important aspect of QE was that it lasted so long, and became so embedded in our collective psyche, politicians around the world began to believe that borrowing money was free. For more than a decade, it certainly looked like that. Investors sat quietly buying very, very expensive government bonds to finance widening fiscal deficits. Many of these investors, particularly pension funds, were effectively forced to do so to satisfy pension regulators' demands for what is known as 'asset-liability matching', for which long-dated government bonds, particularly index-linked bonds, were a near perfect liability match. The global financial crisis, which had revealed very 'unmatched' portfolios, encouraged governments to strengthen the rules about asset-liability matching, hence the willing investors buying gilts at any price. In any case, gilts performed very well in the period between 2010 and 2021: as interest rates continually fell, their prices continually rose. Businesses that normally would have gone bankrupt didn't because they could finance or refinance their debt at almost zero cost. There was even an academic movement called Modern Monetary Theory, which argued that borrowing money was, in effect, free, so governments could loosen their purse strings without constraint. As a result of this perception that borrowing was very cheap or 'free', the Government borrowed like it has never borrowed before. According to the ONS, the total financial liabilities of the public sector rose from £1.4tn at the end of 2009 to £3.4tn at the end of 2021 – a more-than-doubling of overall government debt in just over a decade. And this in a period of suppressed inflation. What's more, this figure does not include the unfunded public sector pension liability, which at the end of March 2022 stood at another £2.6tn. You might wonder why the Government doesn't recognise the public sector pension liabilities in its main accounts, but this is a separate topic for discussion. A very important secondary effect of QE was that real assets – those that produced returns for investors – rose in value very substantially. House prices, shares and commercial property were all buoyed by the fact that they yielded much higher income than the interest payable on the borrowing to buy them. It was a simple income arbitrage – borrow money very cheaply, and invest in anything that yielded a higher return. In the UK, buy-to-let residential property exploded as an investment activity. This shouldn't have been surprising: a saver could borrow money with a mortgage at 2pc or less, and invest in property that yielded 5pc or more. Property prices themselves were strong, so both income and capital gains seemed attractive. It is also worth mentioning that individual savers, a much-ignored and abused section of the UK economy, were horribly treated during the whole QE period. Interest rates (particularly after tax) failed by a long way to keep up with (even modest) inflation, so saving became a way to lose money – and borrowing became a way to make money. These observations turned into habits and ways of thinking for people – instilling exactly the opposite of good financial instincts into the general population. Finally, on the direct effects of QE, let's look at the effect on the Bank of England. The Bank was used by the Government as its agent – some might say poodle – to buy the Government's own debt with money the Bank borrowed from the private banking system. The Government indemnified the Bank against any losses that it might incur in this hedge fund-like market activity. That indemnity was necessary, as it turned out, as at the end of QE the gilts the Bank owned turned out to be worth several hundred billion pounds less than the overdraft used to fund their purchase. The effect was for the Government to borrow about £800bn of very short-term money on overdraft with a variable interest rate, instead of long-term, low-interest issues of gilts. So when interest rates went up, as they were ultimately always going to do, the taxpayer had much less cheap borrowing secured. We are now paying dearly for something the public didn't understand and wasn't consulted on, and now appears to be utterly pointless. Let's summarise. QE was designed to 'pump money into the economy' to stimulate investment and economic activity. From the growth figures, it appeared to do the opposite (although there are many other factors in play). No mention was made of the possible downsides, and these now appear to be legion and severe. They include: Extreme laxity in public sector finances; a disregard for the long-term effects of public sector indebtedness; much higher valuations of real assets (largely residential property); a stealth tax on savers; a central bank with a weakened reputation and a bloated negative balance sheet guaranteed by the Government. Has anyone who served in government been criticised for this decision? Has anyone lost their job? Does anyone even know who made the decision? Do we know the identities of the economic advisers who suggested and promoted this idea? Have we as a nation thought about the consequences so we can learn lessons for the future? The answer to all these questions is 'no'.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
'Our tours have expanded east due to The Barras Market'
A lot can change in the space of 15 years. As well as maintaining its status as the beating and banter-filled heart of Glasgow, The Barras has also become a must-visit destination for tourists visiting the city for its cultural significance and the truly unique Glasgow experience it provides. Travel bible National Geographic is among those to have gone big on The Barras trumpet blowing, describing it is 'a market reborn' and the best spot to 'shop like a local' and unearth a bargain or browse for antiques and vintage fashion. BAaD, the multi-use event space and venue located within the market, is also mentioned in glowing terms: 'With e-bike racks nearby, and a healthy presence of IPAs, street art, hipsters and all, it almost feels as though you could be in Brooklyn'. Meanwhile, Gothenburg-based ArrivalGuides, which claims to be the world's largest distributor of destination content, describes The Barras as a 'justly renowned vintage flea market' that is a 'great place to people-watch and pick up some words of the distinctive Glasgow patter'. The Barras Market (Image: Gordon Terris) Glasgow City Council has put the work in to promote the market as a tourist destination via improvement work such as more signage directing tourists and visitors to Glasgow to the market, improving the public realm and the area's connections to surrounding neighbourhoods to encourage more footfall from the centre centre and repairing the distinctive Barras arches. Key to the growth in popularity of The Barras as a 'must-see' destination for tourists visiting Glasgow has been the rise of localism - encouraging visitors to engage with and support local businesses and cultures - within the context of tourism revival in post-Covid pandemic. With the increasing presence of multinational corporations and global retail chains leading to a sense of homogeneity in cities across the globe, the concept of 'neighbourhood' tourism has soared as travellers seek a local sense of place and more experiences that are true to local culture. In tandem has been a rise in a more ethically conscious generation of travellers who seek to positively impact the destinations they visit and prioritize supporting local communities and businesses. A 2023 report by digital travel company found that 75% of surveyed travellers expressed a desire for "authentic experiences that are representative of the local culture". READ MORE: How The Barras stealthily became Glasgow's most exciting foodie destination 'You won't find Starbucks here!': Fourth generation trader on Barras evolution How lockdown brought pizza revolution to 'Glasgow's coolest food spot Chris Greenwood, Senior Research Fellow at The Moffat Centre for [[Travel]] and Tourism at Glasgow Caledonian University, the UK's largest university-based consultancy and research centre for tourism and travel market research and business development, believes both localism and 'intangible cultural heritage' are experiencing a real growth in popularity at the moment. He told The Herald: 'Visitors come to see and be immersed in the real destination. The heritage and history of The Barras provides all those levers for visitors who want the real Glasgow. 'It's also an attraction that supports a number of local businesses which is a major factor for supporting a sustainable visitor economy and the surrounding communities which also benefit." VisitScotland, the organization responsible for promoting the country as a travel destination, has also noticed a growth in the popularity of community-focused tourism, from independent producers and retailers and localism, in particular with its international markets. Examples include farming 'agritourism', where you can meet the animals and farm workers, to arts and crafts such as gin-making classes and of course trips to Scotch Whisky visitor centres, which have collectively risen to become the top visitor attraction in Scotland. A stallholder at The Barras VisitScotland's Regional Director Lynne Cooper told The Herald: 'Shopping is a popular choice for visitors to Glasgow and there's a great range of experiences, to suit all budgets and tastes. 'The Barras offers an authentic way visitors can support local traders and enjoy the famous storytelling and humour associated with the city. 'Working with our local partners we're encouraging visitors to discover unique experiences like this all over Glasgow. 'Tourism and events are among the city's most important industries and economic drivers. The visitor economy is helping to regenerate areas like the East End, by supporting jobs, businesses and encouraging investment.' While exact data on footfall is hard to track as a result of The Barras being a free attraction, sightseeing tour agency City Sightseeing Glasgow, which offers hop-on hop-off bus tours around the city, can testify to the market's growth in popularity among visitors to the city. Richy Graham, Operations Manager at City Sightseeing Glasgow, told The Herald: "At City Sightseeing Glasgow, we've witnessed first-hand how The Barras weekend market is becoming one of the city's vibrant and popular destinations. 'Our tours have expanded east due to the market and the areas rising popularity. Stops 4 (Red Route) and 9 (Yellow Route) cater specifically to Barras visitors, and we've noticed more customers requesting these stops. 'Whether you're exploring the stalls, enjoying the music, or immersing yourself in the atmosphere, The Barras continues to reflect the authentic, eclectic, and lively heart and soul of Glasgow. It perfectly showcases what makes our city so special and real."
Auto Blog
10 hours ago
- Auto Blog
GM Beats Earnings Expectations But Still Down Year Over Year Thanks To Tariff Scare
By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Tariffs spoil GM's good news General Motors (GM) reported a strong second quarter for 2025, surpassing earnings expectations and increasing earnings per share to $2.53 (compared to expected earnings of $2.44 per share). The automaker reports more than $47 billion in revenue for Q2 2025, which is over $750 million better than expected, and states that its guidance for the year remains on track. In a statement, GM CEO Mary Barra says the company is invigorated by its growth in China and its electrified vehicle portfolio. Despite the positive news, GM stock is down approximately six percent in after-hours trading, and its year-over-year revenue is down, marking the largest year-over-year decline for GM since 2021, a period marred by the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread supply chain issues. The per-share earnings are also lower than this time last year. What has put GM in its worst position since the global shutdown? Tariffs. Door installation on a 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe at GM's Arlington Assembly plant. — Source: General Motors How tariffs are wreaking havoc for GM General Motors' full-year guidance, though still sound, is a result of a first-quarter pivot. Earlier this year, GM announced that it would revise its 2025 prospectus to reflect the potential for up to $5 billion in lost revenue due to tariffs. In May, Barra wrote, 'We are updating our full-year EBIT-adjusted guidance to a range of $10 billion – $12.5 billion, including a current tariff exposure of $4 billion – $5 billion.' Barra also noted, 'There are ongoing discussions with key trade partners that may also have an impact.' This suggests that tariffs would not only affect fully built GM vehicles imported to the United States, but also that supply chain partners may raise pricing should tariffs be imposed. In total, tariffs have cost GM $1.1 billion in 2025. Net income decreased 35 percent to $1.9 billion in Q2 2025, and total EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) declined 32 percent to $3 billion globally, with a sharper decrease in North America, where EBIT fell 46 percent to $2.4 billion. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Where GM is investing and making money Though General Motors boldly predicted it would be all-electric by 2035, consumer demand isn't there. The company has since discarded its all-in-one plan for electrification, saying buyers will dictate the direction the company takes with the production of new vehicles. GM reports sales of 974,000 vehicles in Q2 2025, with a mere 46,300 being EVs. Barra told investors GM is focusing on improving per-vehicle profitability for EVs rather than scalability of the product line. So far, GM is re-investing in ICE vehicles. In June, the automaker announced plans to invest $4 billion in three North American plants: two in Mexico, one in the United States. The investment was focused on two plants in Mexico that produce gas-powered Chevrolet Blazer and Chevrolet Equinox SUVs, and to convert an idled Michigan plant to make ICE SUVs and trucks starting in 2027. 2025 GMC Sierra EV Denali — Source: Adobe Stock Photo Final thoughts Waning interest in EVs has been a developing storyline for North America in 2025, and GM is feeling it. Whether you like its vehicles, GM is a massive automaker, and its moves have a ripple effect throughout the industry. Even when it's reactive, GM is influential. Tariffs are a bargaining chip for the current administration, and GM is paying the price. Investments in North American facilities are sound for several reasons. Still, the auto industry operates on a global supply chain, which tariffs can cripple, regardless of the vehicle's powertrain. Moreover, the government is allowing the federal EV tax credit of $7,500 to expire in September, which is believed to be a major draw for buyers considering an EV. GM may have beaten expectations for Q2 2025, but it's clearly in preservation mode. Pivoting to increasing ICE production, absorbing the exposure from tariffs, and maintaining pricing is a disciplined approach – we will just have to see how long GM is prepared to toe the line before its bottom line suffers. About the Author Nate Swanner View Profile
