T&WC Budget Exposed

To The Residents of Telford and Wrekin

At Truth Tracker Telford, we have two members with an economic background, who have put their heads together, and aim to help you understand the story behind the headlines of Telford and Wrekin Councils budget. 

A House Built on Sand: Reckless Finance, Regressive Choices, and the Normalisation of Austerity

This budget is a document of two contradictory faces. On one hand, it boasts of a "balanced budget" for 2026/27. On the other, it reveals a council hurtling towards a financial cliff edge, choosing corporate risk over community resilience. From a our perspective, three damaging aspects stand out:

The Casino Economy: 

The council is gambling essential public funds on commercial property speculation. With a Property Investment Portfolio (PIP) of £191.5m growing to over £254m, the council acts as a developer, not a public body. This exposes frontline services to the whims of the property market. The projected return on this massive risk is a paltry 2% , a figure so low it suggests the council is subsidising private enterprise while claiming to generate income.

A Future of Deep Cuts Disguised as "Efficiency": 

While the 2026/27 budget is balanced, it hides a staggering, unresolved funding black hole of over £115 million across the following three years (2027-2030). The "savings" of £11.38m for next year, particularly the vague £7.3m in "Service Review/Re-design," are a recipe for devastating cuts to the very services—social care, community support—that the most vulnerable rely on.

Regressive Funding Masquerading as Prudence: 

The strategy relies on regressive income generation (£2.96m from charges and fees) that hits working-class families hardest, while refusing to use the progressive tools at its disposal. 

There is no mention of aggressive use of Empty Property Levies or a bold campaign for council tax reform to make the wealthy pay their share. It chooses to squeeze the many while protecting the investments of the few.

This is not a strategy of inevitability; it is a strategy of choice. It chooses speculation over security, charges over wealth taxes, and accepts the Tory narrative of "no alternative" rather than fighting for the transformative, well-funded public services our community deserves.

The Analysis of Service Cuts & Social Impact

The documents released by Telford and Wrekin Council are carefully worded to obscure the human impact of its "efficiencies." 

The public-facing summary of savings are a masterclass in opaque accounting, grouping cuts into broad themes that distance the council from the real-world consequences.

· The £7.3m "Service Review/Re-design" Black Box: This is the largest category of cuts and the most dangerous. The documents admit these changes are "subject to consultation" and will involve "changing how services are delivered." In the language of local government austerity, this almost universally translates to:

  · Adult Social Care: The "redesign" they mention, is framed around "prevention," but the reality is likely to be rationing of care, increased eligibility thresholds, and cutting back on the support that allows disabled and elderly people to live with dignity. This shifts the burden from the state onto unpaid family carers—overwhelmingly women.

  · Children's Services: While the council touts a net increase in spending, the "review of commissioning" is a euphemism for cutting costs. This could mean moving vulnerable children to cheaper, potentially lower-quality placements, miles away from their support networks, to save money. It values the balance sheet over the wellbeing of the most vulnerable children.

  · Community Wealth Stripping: The proposal to devolve services to "Town & Parish Councils and Voluntary Sector" is a classic outsourcing tactic. It downloads statutory responsibilities onto unfunded or underfunded community groups. If a parish council refuses or cannot afford to maintain a community centre or a park, it will simply close. This is not "localism"; it is the managed decline of the public realm.

· The Myth of the "Static" Reserve: The documents highlight that the £4.117m General Fund Reserve remains static. This is presented as prudent. However, it ignores the context of skyrocketing demand and inflation. A reserve that does not grow in line with the scale of the risks the council is taking is, in real terms, a shrinking safety net. The £21.7m Budget Strategy Reserve is being hoarded for "transformation" (i.e., funding the costs of making cuts), not for protecting services from the storm that is clearly visible on the horizon.

Who pays? The working class, the disabled, the elderly, and those already on the edge. They will pay with reduced care, the loss of community assets, and the relentless creep of charges. Meanwhile, the council's commercial tenants and the holders of its debt reap the benefits.

Flawed Financial Strategy

The financial strategy is a high-risk gamble dressed up in the grey language of treasury management. It prioritises the balance sheet of the "council as business" over the wellbeing of the "council as community."

· Reckless Speculation (The PIP): The Property Investment Portfolio is the single greatest threat to this council's financial stability. The strategy boasts of £59.9m of new investment in the PIP, growing its total value to over a quarter of a billion pounds. The stated return of "circa 2.0% after the cost of borrowing" is an admission of failure. It is lower than the interest rate the council is paying on its own debt in the early years. This means the council is losing money on these investments, subsidising private rents and commercial landlords with borrowed public cash, all while claiming the primary benefit is "jobs." This is a corporate welfare scheme, pure and simple. As the document notes, the financial return is merely "ancillary," yet the risk is entirely shouldered by the public.

· The "Interest Rate Roulette": The strategy of using £151m in short-term "temporary loans" to fund long-term projects is not clever financial management; it is gambling on the money markets. The Chief Financial Officer is betting that interest rates will fall. If they do not—or if they rise—the council faces a "£2.3m per year" additional cost for every 1% increase. 

This is money that will have to be found from existing services. This exposes the council's entire budget, from social care to road sweeping, to the volatility of global financial markets. It prioritises a speculative bet over budget certainty.

· Regressive Funding Choices: The strategy relies heavily on Income Generation (£2.96m) from sources like "Leisure" and other services. These are flat-rate charges that take a much larger percentage of a low-income household's earnings than a wealthy one. They are a tax on the poor. The document is completely silent on any attempt to use progressive powers. 

There is no strategy to maximise the use of the Empty Property Levy on derelict commercial buildings or to push for a referendum on a Council Tax premium on second homes and the most expensive properties in the borough. This council has chosen to make the cost-of-living crisis worse for working people rather than confront property speculators and wealthy homeowners.

The Narrative of "Inevitable Cuts"

The report placed before council constantly nods to central government underfunding, and it is crucial to acknowledge that the root cause of this crisis is 14 years of Tory austerity. 

However, the council's response is one of passive acceptance and replication of that austerity, not resistance.

The projected funding gap of £32.7m, £36.3m, and £46.0m for the three years after next is presented almost as a force of nature, a weather event that must be weathered. The language, "it is certain that the actual position will be different", creates a sense of fog and uncertainty, designed to make our residents accept that difficult choices are inevitable.

This is a political choice. An alternative strategy would be:

· Political Confrontation: Instead of meekly planning for cuts, the council could use its platform to lead a mass campaign of civil disobedience and non-compliance with inadequate government funding, forming a "Popular Group of Local Authorities" to demand a New Deal for local government.

· Challenging the Narrative: The document accepts that the "low-hanging fruit" of savings is gone and that future savings are harder. A Green Party analysis would flip this: it proves that the model of cuts-based "efficiency" has failed. 

It is not that the fruit is gone; it is that the tree is barren. It is time to stop shaking it and start demanding a new tree—one rooted in progressive national taxation.

By accepting the "gap" as a given, the council pre-emptively justifies the decimation of its own services. It acts as a manager of decline, rather than a champion of the community's right to thrive.

Alternative Proposals: A Peoples Budget

What would a budget based on principles of social and environmental justice look like for Telford and Wrekin?

Divest from Speculation, Invest in Retrofit: 

Immediately halt all new commercial property investments with sub-4% returns. Instead, create a massive, locally-run Home Retrofitting Programme. This would tackle fuel poverty, reduce carbon emissions, and create hundreds of good, local jobs. The £59.9m slated for the PIP should be redirected here.

Make the Wealthy Pay:

   · Launch a zero-tolerance policy on empty properties, using Empty Property Levies and, ultimately, Compulsory Purchase Orders to bring them back into community use.

   · Publicly campaign for and prepare the ground for a proportional property tax to replace the regressive council tax, while in the interim, using all available powers to increase the burden on second homes and the highest-value bands.

In-House, Not Outsource: 

Commit to bringing all outsourced services back in-house. Stop the "partnership" devolution of services to underfunded groups. A public service, delivered by fairly-paid public employees, is more accountable, efficient, and dignified than a patchwork of charities and private contractors.

End the Gamble: 

Immediately cease the practice of funding long-term needs with short-term debt. Take the political hit of securing long-term, fixed-rate borrowing to provide budget certainty. Protect frontline services from the whims of the interest rate market.

This Labour Councils budget is a choice. It chooses to be a cautious accountant for a declining council rather than a bold architect of a just and sustainable future. 

The people of Telford and Wrekin deserve better.