Last week, a resident stopped me outside the corner shop. They asked two simple questions: “Why are the bins going to be collected fortnightly? And why is there a plan to shut libraries early or even close them?”
Our council is being asked to do more with less, again. Ministers and some Labour councillors tell us: “Austerity is over.”
They fit in the same sentence. Austerity is over with cutting library open hours. They promise growth and investment. But on the ground, austerity never really left. It just changed its outfit.
During covid, the government opened the purse because it had to. Councils were told to protect people and keep towns running. Some extra money came in and some contracts seemed to be handed out without proper checks.
Then the tap started turning off again, as it had after the 2007 financial crisis. Now we live with a “new normal”: tight spending plans, short-term fixes and big promises pushed into the future.
It’s not the chopping of the 2010s. It’s a slow squeeze. Call it “Austerity Reborn” if you like – same results, new packaging.
In 2023, the councillors who now plan to close libraries stood for election on a manifesto which, on page 12, said: “We will look for ways to set up community hubs – warm, safe spaces – all over the city.
“Our libraries, which already provide information about council and community services, along with many underused rooms and halls and churches in our neighbourhoods, can be developed into places where people can meet, find information and advice, share activities.”
Here’s what that means for our city.
A library is not just books. It’s a warm place when your home is cold. It’s an accessible internet. It’s story time, homework space and help with forms. When we cut library hours, we cut chances.
And the bins? Weekly collections keep streets cleaner and stop pests. Moving to fortnightly may look like a small change on a spreadsheet. In real life, it can mean more smells, more dumped rubbish and more worry for families.
Councils are cash-strapped because the deep cuts since 2010 were never properly repaired. Costs keep rising but the funding we get from the central government has not kept up.
Some will say: “But spending is going up.” And in a few areas, it is. The NHS and parts of the justice system have had bigger budgets than some earlier plans. That is welcomed.
But it also hides the bigger picture. Many departments are “unprotected” which is a polite way of saying they are first in line for future cuts.
Plans after 2025-26 and beyond 2026 often assume spending falls again. So the squeeze lands on councils, courts, youth services and community safety.
That is why we are being pushed to make choices that no one voted for: shorten library hours, reduce collections and stretch staff. It’s managed decline with a logo nobody asked for.
Every year, councils set a budget that must balance. They can’t print money. They can raise council tax and hit residents who are already stretched.
They apply for short-term grants and we’re told to “innovate” even though the numbers struggle to add up. They join up services, cut, cut and squeeze contracts – and still the gap stays.
When the government gives cash for one year but costs rise for ten, that isn’t generosity. It’s austerity by stealth. Meanwhile, social care bills grow because need does not wait.
And let’s be honest about who pays. When councils are forced to slash services, it hits the nurse who needs childcare, the pensioner who needs a safe place to sit and the young person who needs to prepare for a potential life in debt.
Meanwhile, those with the broadest shoulders still find ways to dodge the heaviest lifting. We need tax justice, not cuts. We must rebuild social security around vulnerability, not punishment.
“You may say I’m a dreamer but I’m not the only one.” I don’t accept that this is the best we can do. Austerity isn’t over.
What we can’t afford is pretending the squeeze is “over” just because the word has gone out of fashion.
If we want real growth, we must invest in the everyday things that make life work – not just for a year or two but for the long haul – because a city with closed libraries and overflowing bins is not a city on the up. It’s a concerning sign.
Bruno De Oliveira, is an Independent councillor who represents Hollingdean and Fiveways on Brighton and Hove City Council.
I always find Bruno articulates himself well, and I’d offer countenance in good faith.
I agree that councils are under enormous financial pressure, but I don’t think it’s fair to frame Brighton’s proposals as some sort of voluntary “managed decline”. Local government’s statutory duties shape almost everything here, something that the councillor should be well aware of in his role.
He’s right that core funding for councils has never returned to its previous level in real terms, and demand for adult social care, children’s services and homelessness support has risen far faster than inflation. However, those are legal duties that have to be funded first. Libraries and weekly general waste collections aren’t.
On bins, WRAP and Defra evidence shows that fortnightly collections reduces contamination and increases recycling rather than being a cut in itself. Weekly food waste collections are the bit that actually matter for hygiene and pests. However, my opinion is that Brighton isn’t ready for this switchover yet, we certainly need stability and reliability, and the latest changes, such as the digital tracking, should enable that, but time will tell.
On libraries, again, it’s a consideration of £250k needing to be saved across three years in the face of gaps driven by ASC and TA. It’s not ideal for anyone, but it’s not a dismantling of the service either. Community hub models are still on the table, and one that I think has real merit in perusing.
The national picture is the real problem. One year funding pots, ringfenced grants and rising statutory demand leave councils with very limited room to manoeuvre. Until that changes, every authority ends up choosing between bad options. It means that items such as LGR and devolution are cornerstones of changing the foundation.
And as a stark reminder, and one I suspect Bruno knows well, Ward Councillors have little to no impact on the National level; we can’t measure local vs. national – completely different worlds.
He got under your skin again brov. You sound a bit defensive, diddums!
Like I said, Bruno expresses himself well, but he left out some practical realities, so I’ve added what he skipped over. Nothing more to it. If that sounds “defensive”, that might say more about the person reading than the comment.
Dude why are you so defensive? Which Liebour Cllr are you? Blah Blah Blah keep our libraries open and pick our bins.
Overused line. If you read my comment, you’d understand I’m in support of both keeping libraries open and picking our bins. Want to try again?
How is Labour National and Local doing at encouraging growth and therefore more income?
In the 2023 Labour manifesto spoke expanding community hubs and existing libraries, implying there would be an increase in warm, safe spaces to meet, in addition to the existing libraries.
Yet on Labour Leader Bella Sankey’s watch the council are reducing hours at the main libraries in the city and closing multiple community libraries. It abslutely stinks!
It was only in March 2025 that Bella was celebrating 20 years of the Jubilee Library, she said then “In times when people desperately crave third spaces, when it’s hard to leave your house without spending money, when it’s difficult to find support and build meaningful connections, our Jubilee Library shines.”
Six months later she’s reducing opening hours there and doing NOTHING to challenge the Labour government on the austerity causing local government funding pressures. I’m fed up of councillors serving their party above the needs of residents in the city. The Labour councillors are custodians of the city’s assets and they have ignored the overwhelming outcome of the opposition to library closures in the consultation. Their disregard for residents’ views and the pledges they got elected on is shocking!
I think we need to stop seeing manifestos as black and white promises, and more accurately as ambitions and priorities. Circumstances change and any serious administration has to adapt. I think this is true of every party. I don’t believe that is a hot take.
So the real question for me is what is the alternative plan that keeps these places open while still meeting the required savings? I would love to see a worked proposal. I think we’re more insightful than just “Library closed is bad.”
“I think we need to stop seeing manifestos as black and white promises” aren’t from the Liebour party? You epitomise their contempt to tax payers as clear as that in black and white.
That’s a reach, Phil. It is simply how democratic government actually works in the real world. Every party does this, including the Cons when they abandon pledges the moment fiscal or legal reality bites; Reform recently u-turned on all their pledges in Kent; Greens left BHCC in a extremely poor fiscal position which is still affecting the city to this day – it is unique to no-one.
If there is a reasonable proposal that protects libraries, I am genuinely interested in it. If there is not, then the honest debate is about what can be reduced and why; not pretending there was a secret pot of money that councillors are maliciously ignoring – Bruno would be the first to tell the public if that was the case.
We can disagree with the priorities, absolutely, and there’s a good conversation to be had there, But mischaracterising pragmatic realism as party loyalty with parroted phrases is not helpful to anyone. Let’s have a mature conversation instead.
Most of the Labour lot are career politicians. They are looking after their own. They don’t care about residents or the city. It takes a Portuguese born councillor to stand for our public assets. He has nothing but my respect.
I think it is very easy to criticise from the sidelines in an article though. Actually doing something, or providing a solution, that’s a much more indicative test. An idealistic desire is certainly agreeable, but it does have to be matched with pragmatic realities. Anyway, I don’t think we’re at the endpoint of these assets yet.