Brent's population growth grossly underestimated

With the publication of the Census 2011 data in July, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) have at last accepted that they have been grossly undercounting the growth in our population since 2001. Instead of their original 257,000 estimate, they now accept that the real figures are more like 312,000. That's about 55,000 less than we actually have! For ten years now, they have grossly underestimated the inward migration to the borough, basing their calculations on birth and death rates only.

While the government bases its formula for grants to the Borough on these statistics, we are advised that the actual impact on grants received since 2001 has not been as great as might be feared. This is said to be because Brent was protected by the operation of the government funding mechanism known as 'floors and ceilings', which were designed to moderate significant variations in allocations between local authorities based on population changes. Don't ask us to explain this jargon, but our best financial and policy brains assure us that it is so.

But if nothing else, it highlights the lack of transparency in the distribution of our national taxes to local councils by government. As a result, nobody quite knows whether the system is fair or not. If the ONS experts can get it wrong by so much for so long, god only knows what is happening in government departments. The West Coast Railway debacle in the Ministry of Transport strengthens this fear.

In the meantime, wealthy boroughs like Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and the City of London, are claiming that the latest (2011) statistics underestimate their numbers. This is contested strongly by the Office of National Statistics, but as these boroughs 'have the ear' of this government, are we likely to see these three boroughs get their way  at our expense as they did a few years ago? That is why  Brent and the twenty (out of 33) other London boroughs who have seen a steady increase in their populations and demand for services, will be lobbying the government to increase their funding, rather than cutting it by 28% as they are doing.