Andy Burnham has been accused of punishing voters after a local authority was forced to hike council tax by 94% following an £84million cut in government funding. Known as Margaret Thatcher’s “favourite council” for its historically low tax rates, Wandsworth Council said it would raise tax on Band D properties by £958.

The Conservative-run authority said the rise will go ahead unless the Government “rethinks its cuts to funding”. It blamed the Government’s Fair Funding reforms, which redistribute local government funding grants away from areas in London to other regions, for an £84million reduction in funding. The council said this would amount to a 40% loss of all its spending on parks, libraries, leisure centres, bin collections and street cleaning.

Katie Lam, Shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, said: “For all his talk of localism, Andy Burnham is forcing higher taxes on people who’ve voted for exactly the opposite.

“Wandsworth kept council tax low for decades, and instead of rewarding the council, Labour’s funding changes are leaving it £84million a year worse off, with local people forced to pick up the tab.”

She also lashed out at Mr Burnham’s track record on council tax.

“This is straight out of Burnham’s playbook. When he was mayor of Greater Manchester, he hiked council tax by a staggering 127%,” she said.

“Labour can dress it up however they like, but their instincts are always the same – spend more and make taxpayers foot the bill, even when they vote for exactly the opposite.”

Labour MP for Putney, Fleur Anderson, said the “shocking” increase will be “very worrying” for families across Wandsworth.

“The Conservatives only very narrowly won the election against a Labour council, who would not have brought in this shocking increase,” she said.

“The Conservative-run council should listen to residents and reverse this huge council tax increase. Wandsworth families should not be forced to pay the price for the cruel choices this Conservative administration has made.”

Wandsworth previously had one of the lowest council tax rates in the country, but confirmed the rise from April 2027 in a statement on Tuesday.

The plans, which will be implemented under local government minister Angela Rayner, have shifted funding towards more deprived areas, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) calling it a bid to restore “pride and opportunity in left behind places”.

Most councils usually increase council tax bills by the maximum allowed amount of 4.99% for an upper-tier authority with social care responsibilities.

But six councils – Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham, City of London, and Windsor and Maidenhead – have been granted the power by the Government to make larger council tax hikes for two years without needing a residents’ referendum.

Andy Burnham Savaged as Council Forced to Hike Tax by a Staggering 94%

A dramatic new dispute over local government finance has placed Prime Minister Andy Burnham and his Labour government under renewed political pressure after Wandsworth Council announced plans for a 94 per cent increase in council tax. The proposed rise, which would add approximately £958 to the annual bill for a Band D property, has attracted strong criticism from Conservative politicians and some local representatives. The council says the increase is necessary because of changes to central government funding, while the government argues that its reforms are designed to address longstanding inequalities in the way local authorities are funded. TThe Times+1

The scale of the proposed increase has attracted particular attention because Wandsworth has historically been famous for having exceptionally low council tax. For decades, the London borough was associated with a low-tax approach to local government and was once praised by former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as an example for other councils to follow. The proposed change therefore represents a significant departure from Wandsworth’s traditional financial model. FFinancial Times

Under the proposal, council tax on an average Band D property would rise from approximately £1,020 to around £1,978 when the increase is combined with the existing Greater London Authority precept. The council’s own portion would rise from roughly £510 to approximately £1,468. Although the 94 per cent figure sounds enormous, it is important to recognise that the increase applies specifically to the council’s share rather than representing a 94 per cent increase in every component of the overall household tax bill. FFinancial Times+1

Wandsworth Council has blamed changes to the government’s local government funding system for the proposed increase. According to the council, it expects to lose approximately £84 million a year in central government funding under the new arrangements. Council representatives argue that the reduction creates a major financial gap that cannot easily be filled without increasing council tax or reducing local services. TThe Times+1

The council has pointed out that £84 million represents a very substantial amount of its budget. It has compared the reduction with the combined annual cost of services including parks, libraries, leisure centres, waste collection and street cleaning. From the council’s perspective, therefore, the issue is not simply whether residents should pay more tax, but whether the alternative would be significant reductions in services. TThe Standard

Conservative councillors have strongly criticised the government’s funding reforms. Wandsworth’s deputy leader Peter Graham said the authority did not take the proposed increase lightly and argued that residents should not be forced to bear the consequences of what the council considers an unfair funding system. He also said the council would continue lobbying the government to reconsider the changes. TThe Times

Criticism has also been directed personally at Andy Burnham. Opponents argue that the Labour government’s decisions are effectively forcing residents in a historically low-tax area to pay substantially more. Conservative politicians have attempted to connect the Wandsworth controversy with Burnham’s own record on local taxation and with Labour’s wider approach to public spending. One Conservative spokesperson described the situation as evidence that people who supported low-tax local government were being made to pay for a different political approach. BBrit Brief

However, the government’s explanation is based on a different interpretation of local government fairness. The funding reforms were introduced with the argument that the existing system did not distribute resources according to current levels of need. Wealthier councils with strong local tax bases have historically been able to raise substantial revenue locally, while poorer areas may struggle to generate similar amounts. The government therefore says that funding should take greater account of factors such as deprivation, population characteristics and the ability of councils to raise money locally. FFinancial Times

This creates an important disagreement about what constitutes fairness. Wandsworth’s position is that residents have deliberately supported a low-tax model and that the council has historically sought to manage its finances efficiently. From this perspective, imposing a new funding formula that reduces central government support can be seen as penalising a council for its previous financial decisions.

The government’s argument is almost the opposite. If two councils have significantly different levels of need, it may argue that they should not necessarily receive identical levels of funding. A relatively affluent area with high property values may have a greater capacity to raise money through taxation than a poorer area. Redistributing some central funding could therefore be presented as an attempt to reduce regional inequalities.

The controversy is also connected to a wider debate about the future of local government in England. Councils are responsible for many services that directly affect people’s everyday lives. These include rubbish collection, libraries, parks, social care, planning, housing services and road maintenance. When councils experience financial pressure, they generally face a limited number of options: increase local taxes, reduce services, use reserves, improve efficiency or seek additional support from central government.

Wandsworth has argued that the size of the funding reduction leaves it with little choice. The council has therefore received special permission to increase council tax beyond the normal limit without holding a local referendum. The government has granted similar powers to a small number of other councils, including Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, the City of London and Windsor and Maidenhead. BBrit Brief+1

The proposed rise has understandably generated concern among residents. A £958 increase for a Band D property is significant, particularly for households already dealing with higher living costs. Even though actual bills vary according to council tax band and individual circumstances, a substantial rise can affect household budgets and perceptions of financial security.

At the same time, the headline percentage requires careful interpretation. Wandsworth’s council tax has historically been unusually low compared with many other parts of England. The Times reported that the current Band D council tax was about £1,020.35, compared with more than £2,000 in many other boroughs. A large percentage increase from a low starting point does not necessarily mean that the resulting bill will be the highest in the country. TThe Times

This is one of the most important aspects of the debate. A 94 per cent increase sounds extraordinary because percentages measure the change relative to the original figure. If a council starts with a very low tax rate, bringing it closer to the national average can produce a very large percentage increase even if the final bill is not exceptionally high by national standards.

The dispute also illustrates how difficult it is to separate local and national politics. Council tax is collected locally, but central government funding plays a major role in determining the resources available to councils. As a result, a local tax increase can become a political argument about national government policy. Opposition politicians can blame the government for reducing funding, while the government can point to the council’s own choices and historical tax levels.

There is also an important question about accountability. If residents pay substantially higher council tax, they may reasonably expect clear information about how the additional money will be used. Similarly, if central government transfers resources from one area to another, it should explain the principles behind the redistribution. Transparency is therefore essential if the public is to understand why such a controversial change is being proposed.

The Wandsworth case is particularly significant because it represents a broader conflict between two different philosophies of local government. One approach places greater emphasis on local taxation, spending restraint and the ability of councils to determine their own financial priorities. Another places greater emphasis on redistribution, arguing that national resources should be allocated according to need rather than simply according to historical patterns.

Neither perspective can be understood solely through the 94 per cent figure. The number is striking, but the underlying issue is the relationship between local taxation and central government funding. The key questions are how much money councils need, how those needs should be measured, how much residents in different areas should contribute, and how services should be protected when budgets are under pressure.

The controversy also demonstrates why political headlines can sometimes obscure important details. Descriptions such as “savaged” or “staggering” communicate the intensity of political criticism, but they do not themselves establish whether the government’s policy is justified or whether the council’s response is unavoidable. Those questions require examination of the funding formula, council budgets, service requirements and alternative financial options.

In conclusion, Wandsworth’s proposed 94 per cent council tax increase has become a major political controversy because it combines a dramatic tax rise with a fundamental disagreement over how local government should be financed. The Conservative-led council says an £84 million reduction in government funding has created severe financial pressure, while the Labour government argues that its reforms are intended to make funding more responsive to local need and reduce longstanding inequalities. TThe Times+1

For residents, however, the debate ultimately has a practical consequence: how much they will have to pay and what services they will receive in return. The proposed increase is not yet the final decision, and the council is continuing its consultation process. TThe Times The outcome will therefore be closely watched, not only in Wandsworth but across England, because it could become an important example of the tensions between local autonomy, taxation, public services and national redistribution.

The central lesson is that the 94 per cent figure should be viewed in context. It represents an extraordinary proposed increase in Wandsworth’s council tax, but it follows decades of unusually low taxation and a major change in the way central government funding is distributed. Understanding the dispute requires consideration of both sides of that equation rather than focusing exclusively on the headline number.
:::