Anti-Austerity Summit 2026

Report from Kay Wesley, Leader of the Equality Party

I was happy to attend the Anti-Austerity Summit in Hackney. It brought together councillors, campaigners, trade unionists and community organisations around a central argument: 

Austerity is not inevitable, and local government cannot continue to absorb cuts while being expected to meet rising need.

Across the day, there was a strong emphasis on rebuilding public services, changing the political story around public spending, and forming a broad coalition capable of turning opposition to austerity into a practical programme.

The overall mood

The event was not simply about resisting further cuts. Much of the discussion focused on a more ambitious question: what should a post-austerity UK actually look like?

The vision presented back from delegates was for a society where

• people have enough not simply to survive but to flourish
• communities have greater autonomy
• good ideas can be implemented rather than constantly being ruled out on grounds of cost
• secure housing, fair employment, healthcare, clean air, safe communities and wider wellbeing are treated as legitimate public goals.

There was also a repeated sense that austerity has had consequences far beyond council budgets. Speakers connected it with worsening poverty, falling trust in institutions, social division and the growth of the far right.

Paul Williams of ACORN, for example, argued that the poverty and insecurity created by austerity have damaged morale and trust across society, contributing to polarisation. Daniel Kebede of the NEU described the fight against the far right as ‘the fight of our lives’, to strong applause.

At the same time, several speakers stressed that people affected by austerity should not simply be written off because of how they currently vote. The argument was made that some people turning to Reform or other protest politics are themselves reacting to years of failing services and economic insecurity, and that an anti-austerity movement has to find ways of engaging them.

What austerity has done

A recurring theme was the cumulative loss of public and community infrastructure since 2010.

Zita Holbourne described services that have disappeared or been badly weakened: libraries, community centres, early-years provision, family support, SEND services, arts and cultural provision, among others.

She also stressed that the effects are not evenly distributed, with Black and brown communities, women, disabled people and other disadvantaged groups disproportionately affected.

Daniel Kebede highlighted education, saying that spending in England had fallen sharply as a share of GDP and arguing that this was now having a serious impact on children’s education. Concern was also raised about teacher pay awards being only partially funded.

Jordan Rivera of UNISON argued that health services need to expand substantially to meet actual levels of need and rejected the idea that continued austerity should simply be accepted.

One of the strongest contributions from the floor came from a cleaner employed by Southwark Council, who raised the consequences of outsourcing. Zita Holbourne responded that once services are outsourced, the pressure is to drive down wages and workers’ rights because the priority becomes profit rather than people.

The economic argument: “there is no money” was challenged

One of the most substantial strands of the Summit was an attempt to challenge the economic assumptions used to justify austerity.

Cllr Simon Ripton of Derbyshire Dales argued that the familiar claim that “there is no money” is a political narrative rather than an unavoidable economic fact.

His presentation argued that the national government should not be understood like a household that must first raise money before it can spend it. The UK, as the issuer of sterling, has different constraints from households, businesses or local authorities. The important limits on spending are therefore not simply whether pounds exist, but the real resources available in the economy.

The message was “Balance the economy, not the books.”

He argued that government deficits are not automatically harmful, and that cutting public spending in an attempt to reduce deficits can itself make households and businesses poorer and weaken economic resilience.

Ripton also argued that fiscal rules are political choices and can therefore be changed. Returning local authority funding merely to an earlier historical level would not in itself solve the deeper structural problem – we need more than this. He argued that we can use public spending to strengthen national and local resilience for example by reducing dependence on imports for essential goods such as energy and food.

From shareholders to stakeholders – a new banking model

There was also a practical discussion about whether councils could make better use of financial institutions outside the conventional shareholder-banking model.

Examples discussed included publicly owned, mutual and cooperative banking, regional banking and credit-union models. The Bank of North Dakota and work connected with Preston’s community wealth-building approach were cited as examples.

The broad idea was to move from shareholder banking towards “stakeholder banking”, where financial institutions serve communities and local economic development rather than maximising returns to shareholders.

Possible options raised for councils included placing strategic deposits with alternative institutions, considering borrowing mechanisms beyond the mainstream banks, and exploring regional banking structures capable of supporting housing, cooperatives and local economic activity.

The five main asks of government

By the end of the day, the Summit had crystallised much of the discussion into five broad demands.

1. Restore local government funding

The first demand was for local government financial settlements to be restored to at least pre-2010 levels, with reliable funding for statutory and non-statutory services.

A particularly important principle was that funding should be based primarily on need, rather than councils simply being forced to work within an inadequate envelope.

This reflected one of the strongest messages of the whole day: councils cannot endlessly compensate for national underfunding through efficiencies, council-tax rises and service reductions.

2. Cancel local authority debt

The second demand was for the cancellation of local authority debt.

The argument made at the Summit was that heavily indebted councils are trapped in a cycle of using scarce resources to service debt rather than meeting residents’ needs.

Debt cancellation was therefore presented as a way of allowing councils to start again financially and redirect resources towards public services.

3. A major programme of council housing

The original wording around more funding for housing in general was strengthened during our discussion.

Delegates strongly favoured explicitly calling for council homes, rather than the more general term “social homes”, and this reportedly received a round of applause.

The final direction included:

• substantially more capital funding for council housing;
• long-term investment in good-quality, accessible and sustainable homes;
• proper maintenance;
• ending the current model of Right to Buy;
• moving away from a developer-led approach to housing.

There was significant discussion around Right to Buy with some delegates keen to say ‘end Right to Buy’ and others talking of the ‘current model’ being ended. I believe that if we replace every house with new social housing then there could be a future for Right to Buy. The priority is to meet the need for social housing.

Housing therefore emerged not simply as a question of building more units, but of restoring a meaningful municipal housing system.

4. Fairer ways of raising local revenue

There was strong support for reforming council tax and finding new ways for councils to raise revenue.

The principle was that wealthier property and landowners should contribute more fairly.

Audience contributions pushed this further, including support for taxing accumulated wealth, dealing with wealthy landowners holding property, and considering alternatives such as local income taxation.

A wealth tax and a levy on banks were also advocated during the wider discussion, with the argument that financial institutions had returned to very high levels of profitability while many communities remained under severe pressure.

5. Strengthen the public sector

The fifth demand covered a broad package of public-sector reform.

This included giving councils greater power, systematically reducing outsourcing and privatisation, improving public-sector pay and conditions, and exploring new working models such as a four-day week.

This was framed as more than a funding question. The Summit repeatedly argued for rebuilding public capacity – the ability of councils and other public bodies to employ people directly, retain expertise and provide services themselves.

It remains to be seen whether new Prime Minister Andy Burnham in his focus on devolution and prioritising ‘place’ will deliver any of the reforms we need in this area.

Immediate measures to reduce poverty

Alongside the structural proposals, contributors also asked why government could not take relatively straightforward measures that would have an immediate effect on living standards.

Ideas raised included rent controls, limits on utility costs, stronger adult social care provision and increased investment in services that directly relieve household pressures.

The argument was that relatively modest interventions across several areas could make a substantial difference to poverty without waiting for wholesale reform of the economy.

Equality and intersectionality

A very important thread through the Summit was the recognition that austerity does not affect everyone equally.

Zita Holbourne argued strongly that any anti-austerity coalition must also oppose racism and prejudice. Her message was that there should be no hierarchy of rights, while recognising that different communities experience austerity differently.

Caroline Russell similarly called for an intersectional approach involving the whole community.

This was significant because the proposed anti-austerity coalition was not being framed purely as an economic campaign. There was an explicit attempt to connect economic justice with racial equality, disability rights, women’s equality and wider social inclusion.

Cross-party working

One of the more striking features of the Summit was the emphasis on cooperation across political divides.

David Watson spoke positively about collaborative cross-party working in local government and argued that councils need to move away from accepting austerity as inevitable.

Michael Chessum described the current moment as an unusual opportunity for progressive councillors from different political backgrounds to work together.

A question from my friend Stacy Hart of Basingstoke prompted further discussion of cross-party collaboration, including examples of Liberal Democrats and Greens working together locally.

My Equality Party Councillor colleague Susie Mead and I have worked collaboratively with other parties in our local council to advance a progressive agenda.

From discussion to organisation

The Summit used break-out groups to discuss three pillars with which to continue the anti-austerity work: local-authority financial policy and advocacy; campaigning; and storytelling and research.

The Summit ended by trying to turn the day into something more permanent.

Zoe Garbett summarised the achievements as:

• a shared vision of the future;
• a set of asks of government;
• a multi-pronged strategy combining local authority policy and advocacy, campaigning, storytelling and research;
• and a proposed structure for continuing the work.

The suggested structure was an ongoing anti-austerity coalition.  I and the Equality Party are glad to be part of this.

The intention was that these groups should operate as openly as possible and encourage broad participation.

A change in direction

The most important outcome of the Summit was the attempt to replace the question:

“How can councils manage with less?” 

with a much more fundamental one:

“What resources and powers do communities actually need in order to flourish?”

I hope to continue to work with colleagues across the country helping to reframe the debate and demanding that government meets our five demands.

Many thanks to the Mayor of Hackney, Zoe Garbett (Green) for hosting us and for all the organisers.

My central takeaway from the discussions is clear:

Austerity is a political choice, not an inevitability.