Elliot Keck: Councils are spending more and more on taking children to school in taxis
Who's accountable for the results?
Elliott Keck is the Campaigns Director for the Taxpayers’ Alliance.
In May 2025, the Spectator ran undoubtedly one of the most attention-grabbing front covers of 2025: Scuzz Nation. As the author of the piece, wrote, summarising the concept:
“Scuzz Nation looks very much like the country of a few years ago, only worse. It’s a place where decay happens faster than repair, where crime largely goes unpunished and where the social fabric has been slashed, graffitied and left by the side of the road.”
Many a head has been scratched over why exactly it is that Britain, from big city to small village, feels like it’s getting that little bit worse. It goes beyond the age-old complaints about declining local high streets. It includes deteriorating social norms and a pervasive low-level sense of lawlessness.
Such a broad phenomenon will have many causes. But for the reason why the local high street hasn’t been powerwashed for months, why the graffiti still hasn’t been cleaned off the local community centre, why the pothole on your street hasn’t been filled, and why the flower-bed in your local roundabout has rotted, the explanation is actually quite simple. It’s because increasingly councils really are cash-strapped. And it’s not just down to waste and inefficiency. Westminster is to blame.
Since the early 2010s, central government has been steadily delegating responsibility for delivering social care and children’s services to local government. Responsibility, not power or autonomy. It is not for town halls to decide how to allocate resources to these services as it sees fit. You’ve been told to look after your friend’s children for the weekend, but it’s not up to you what to feed them or even how to fill their time.
Only it’s worse than that. Once they’ve been dropped off, you get a flurry of texts. You need to give them dessert, purchase a specific film for them, order a takeaway. Reimbursement is promised, but when it comes it isn’t quite enough.
Because with both SEND and social care, these responsibilities have expanded significantly over time, yet central government funding has not kept pace with rising demand. In both areas, demand is soaring, yet councils have a legal obligation to meet this demand with no cost limit attached. In the case of social care, politicians can at least try and blame demography for this. With SEND and children’s services, it’s the policy that is to blame.
The recent surge in SEND spending is the area where the central government’s role has been most direct, because of national policy changes. This began with the Children and Families Act 2014, which replaced ‘statements of special educational needs’ with ‘education, health and care plans’ (EHCPs). This act increased the age limit for SEND support, from 19 to 25, …
Who's accountable for the results?
Elliott Keck is the Campaigns Director for the Taxpayers’ Alliance.
In May 2025, the Spectator ran undoubtedly one of the most attention-grabbing front covers of 2025: Scuzz Nation. As the author of the piece, wrote, summarising the concept:
“Scuzz Nation looks very much like the country of a few years ago, only worse. It’s a place where decay happens faster than repair, where crime largely goes unpunished and where the social fabric has been slashed, graffitied and left by the side of the road.”
Many a head has been scratched over why exactly it is that Britain, from big city to small village, feels like it’s getting that little bit worse. It goes beyond the age-old complaints about declining local high streets. It includes deteriorating social norms and a pervasive low-level sense of lawlessness.
Such a broad phenomenon will have many causes. But for the reason why the local high street hasn’t been powerwashed for months, why the graffiti still hasn’t been cleaned off the local community centre, why the pothole on your street hasn’t been filled, and why the flower-bed in your local roundabout has rotted, the explanation is actually quite simple. It’s because increasingly councils really are cash-strapped. And it’s not just down to waste and inefficiency. Westminster is to blame.
Since the early 2010s, central government has been steadily delegating responsibility for delivering social care and children’s services to local government. Responsibility, not power or autonomy. It is not for town halls to decide how to allocate resources to these services as it sees fit. You’ve been told to look after your friend’s children for the weekend, but it’s not up to you what to feed them or even how to fill their time.
Only it’s worse than that. Once they’ve been dropped off, you get a flurry of texts. You need to give them dessert, purchase a specific film for them, order a takeaway. Reimbursement is promised, but when it comes it isn’t quite enough.
Because with both SEND and social care, these responsibilities have expanded significantly over time, yet central government funding has not kept pace with rising demand. In both areas, demand is soaring, yet councils have a legal obligation to meet this demand with no cost limit attached. In the case of social care, politicians can at least try and blame demography for this. With SEND and children’s services, it’s the policy that is to blame.
The recent surge in SEND spending is the area where the central government’s role has been most direct, because of national policy changes. This began with the Children and Families Act 2014, which replaced ‘statements of special educational needs’ with ‘education, health and care plans’ (EHCPs). This act increased the age limit for SEND support, from 19 to 25, …
Elliot Keck: Councils are spending more and more on taking children to school in taxis
Who's accountable for the results?
Elliott Keck is the Campaigns Director for the Taxpayers’ Alliance.
In May 2025, the Spectator ran undoubtedly one of the most attention-grabbing front covers of 2025: Scuzz Nation. As the author of the piece, wrote, summarising the concept:
“Scuzz Nation looks very much like the country of a few years ago, only worse. It’s a place where decay happens faster than repair, where crime largely goes unpunished and where the social fabric has been slashed, graffitied and left by the side of the road.”
Many a head has been scratched over why exactly it is that Britain, from big city to small village, feels like it’s getting that little bit worse. It goes beyond the age-old complaints about declining local high streets. It includes deteriorating social norms and a pervasive low-level sense of lawlessness.
Such a broad phenomenon will have many causes. But for the reason why the local high street hasn’t been powerwashed for months, why the graffiti still hasn’t been cleaned off the local community centre, why the pothole on your street hasn’t been filled, and why the flower-bed in your local roundabout has rotted, the explanation is actually quite simple. It’s because increasingly councils really are cash-strapped. And it’s not just down to waste and inefficiency. Westminster is to blame.
Since the early 2010s, central government has been steadily delegating responsibility for delivering social care and children’s services to local government. Responsibility, not power or autonomy. It is not for town halls to decide how to allocate resources to these services as it sees fit. You’ve been told to look after your friend’s children for the weekend, but it’s not up to you what to feed them or even how to fill their time.
Only it’s worse than that. Once they’ve been dropped off, you get a flurry of texts. You need to give them dessert, purchase a specific film for them, order a takeaway. Reimbursement is promised, but when it comes it isn’t quite enough.
Because with both SEND and social care, these responsibilities have expanded significantly over time, yet central government funding has not kept pace with rising demand. In both areas, demand is soaring, yet councils have a legal obligation to meet this demand with no cost limit attached. In the case of social care, politicians can at least try and blame demography for this. With SEND and children’s services, it’s the policy that is to blame.
The recent surge in SEND spending is the area where the central government’s role has been most direct, because of national policy changes. This began with the Children and Families Act 2014, which replaced ‘statements of special educational needs’ with ‘education, health and care plans’ (EHCPs). This act increased the age limit for SEND support, from 19 to 25, …
0 Comments
0 Shares
32 Views
0 Reviews
