Since the Workers of England Union’s conception we have relentless campaigned for the revision and then the removal of the Barnett formula, stating that it was unfair, out-dated and disadvantaged the English taxpayer. We have shown on numerous occasions that over generous funding for Scotland has meant less funding for England. (We also know that many organisations in Wales also call for ‘Barnett revision’ or ‘removal’ due to the difference in funding between Wales and Scotland)
Yesterday the Chartered Institute of Public finance and Accounting (CIPFA) has came out and stated the ‘the Barnett formula is no longer fit for purpose’. The Workers of England Union welcomes the CIPFA report and hopes that the Coalition government listens to their words.
The Workers of England Union have been castigated by several of the larger Trade Unions and the British political establishment for daring to say that the English taxpayer is being unfairly treated due to unfair allocation of taxes across the UK. We believe that the main Trade Unions let their members in England down by not arguing strongly enough for equality for England. The Barnett formula favours Scotland to the amount of £1600.00 per head of population. Yesterday’s announcement by the CIPFA is an encouraging step towards vindicating our stance. Unfortunately we still have a long way to go in getting the Barnett formula removed as the 3 political leaders, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband in a panic before the Scottish independence referendum ‘vowed’ to keep the Barnett formula in place.
To show how unfair the Barnett formula is to the different cities and counties of England the Campaign Team of the Workers of England have produce a table highlighting the difference in funding between Scotland and your area. We think you will be very surprised at how much more money your community would receive if the funding in your area was equal to Scotland. (To check the figures in your area please go to our campaign tab and then to Barnett formula)
Just think, with that extra funding the services in your area would probably not need to face the cutbacks being implemented. We urge you to support our campaign ‘for the Barnett formula to be removed’.
To see how much your area is underfunded click HERE
To see how much you Council is underfunded click HERE
News and expert comment on public policy and finance
Barnett formula ‘not longer fit for purpose’, say CIPFA
By Richard Johnstone | 12 March 2015
The Barnett formula needs to be scrapped as part of moves to ensure an equitable and sustainable distribution of public funding across the UK, a CIPFA submission to the Northern Ireland Assembly has concluded.
In evidence to the assembly’s finance and personnel committee inquiry on the formula , which is used to increase the money available to devolved administrations when overall public spending in England rises, the institute said distribution needed to be modernised.
The ratio for increases has not been revised since the creation of the formula in 1979, and is based on population rather than need, which critics say means distribution of public money is now inequitable .
Submitting the evidence to the committee, CIPFA’s head of devolved government Don Peebles said what was intended as a short-term approach to devolving funding has been used as long-term formula but was no longer fit for purpose.
‘CIPFA has called for a replacement of the Barnett Formula and our submission to the Northern Ireland Assembly states clearly that it must be replaced,’ he said.
‘Within the evidence we have given we have suggested that a mechanism linked with tax devolution, that would support sustainable and equitable public services, should be implemented. This should be underpinned by a principles-based approach that focuses on: need, equity, accountability and transparency.
‘CIPFA has also recommended that an independent funding commission should be established to oversee and advise on methodologies and decisions on funding, this would remove the process from the political stage to encourage more transparent and sustainable decision making.’