There was some good news for local government yesterday with the announcement that the capitalisation budget is being increased from £200m to £300m for 2011-12.
Since the £200m figure was set in autumn spending settlement, Liberal Democrats in local government and also ministers such as Danny Alexander and Andrew Stunell have been pushing hard for an increase – with the result being yesterday’s news.
Capitalisation is a technical financial measure but in brief it allows councils more flexibility in their financial decisions. It is the process of letting revenue costs be treated as capital expenditure in limited circumstances, the primary advantages of which are that capital expenditure can be covered by income from a wider range of sources (e.g. borrowing or capital receipts from the sale of assets) and its costs can be spread over several years. That is particularly important for local government at the moment as capitalisation therefore can help councils deal with the front-loading of cuts in their grants.
In addition to the £100m increase, the decisions on capitalisation are now expected in July which is six months earlier than usual.
Richard Kemp, Leader of the Liberal Democrats in Local Government, and not a man shy of criticising the government, has warmly welcomed the announcements:
I am delighted that Lib Dems in Government are listening to the pleas of local government.
It has been agreed following intense discussions between Lib Dem council leaders and Andrew Stunell the Lib Dem Minister in DCLG and Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is not as much as we would have liked but is a lot more than we had originally been told.
This announcement is good news for local authorities with the most difficult settlements, as the money is expected to be handed out based on a council’s level of reserves and overall financial position. Lib Dems in local and central government and the Local Government Association have been lobbying hard for this.
Capitalisation, often of a council’s own money, means no hand outs from Government but an intelligent way of using available resources to ensure the minimization of disruption to services and the maximization of efficiency savings.
We hope other Ministers will listen to our sensible requests in the way that Andrew and Danny have done.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Anna Sabine on losing and partially regaining her voice
The public angst of the Green Party
Andrew Tampion
Tristan Ward
Andrew Tampion
Jana
Simon Robinson
4 Comments
Mark – your capacity for self-deluding comments are always amusing. This is, as they say, a drop in the ocean compared to the decimation of their other funding streams. The coalition loves pretending it likes ‘localism’, but only allows local cuts, but not local tax-raising powers; it loves taking public services out of state hands, but know in the real world this will see core services being handed over to private firms. So much for democracy.
Meanwhile, the elephant in the room, is the deafening (and shameful) silence of the Party on the privatisation of the NHS. For that is what the Health and Social Care Bill is, whatever fluffy terms team Cameron wants to use:
http://etonmess.blogspot.com/2011/03/lansleys-reforms-will-privatise-nhs.html
The NHS isnt being “privatised”, and saying that means that people wont take you seriously.
This is a bit late! Most councils must have set their budgets by now, and even if they haven’t it’s too late to start unpicking the budget at this stage.
MBoy – I’d love you to explain how in a system where the the delivery and commissioning of services can be run by profit-making private firms, you can call it anything but. If you agree with the approach, then fine, but the mangling of terminology the coalition has indulged in is getting boring.
I normally shy from using emotive language, as it does distract from arguments, you are right… but at the end of the day you need to call a spade a spade: the NHS and Social Care Bill is a bill to privatise the NHS. That’s its aim and its purpose. Trying to argue otherwise is going to require some spectacularly dubious sleights of language, but feel free to have a go.