• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities

    June 29, 2022

  • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets

    June 28, 2022

  • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’

    June 27, 2022

  • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as “disappointing”

    June 27, 2022

  • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council

    June 23, 2022

  • Low earners at Surrey County Council receive 7.85% pay increase

    June 23, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Agent151: Settlement largesse

0
  • by Agent 151
  • in Agent 151 · Blogs
  • — 15 Feb, 2016

agent 151 520You may think I am naïve in believing that the local tax level ought to be something local government is held to account for at the ballot box. This is what happens in other countries, and it is one of the things that makes local democracy matter. Of course, it is not what happens in the UK.

No, in the UK there are very tight central government controls on local taxation. For council tax, there is the clever mechanism of making councils have a referendum if they wish to put up the tax by more than an arbitrary central government limit.

Councils elected for a four-year term in a fair democratic process have to go back to the ballot box it they want to put up local taxes. It’s madness. It really is, you know.

For business rates, the rate is set nationally and there is little local discretion to make local adjustments.

No one has protested about any of this because they were long ago de-sensitised by the introduction of capping, which came about when the balance of power between central and local government was threatened by radical local politics.

Since then, no-one has believed that their vote in local elections counted for much anyway, and the steady centralisation of control over education, social care and housing has only served to reinforce this view.

Now we find ourselves in the extraordinary situation in which central government is allowing (yes, allowing) local authorities to put up the council tax by an extra 2% without a local referendum to deal with social care pressures.

Your spending power has gone up, it trumpets, as if it should be thanked for its largesse. By the way, it adds, don’t moan about those social care cost pressures any more because we’ve given you the answer.

To make matters worse, it is now including the assumption that councils will put up their tax in its grant calculations, whether they do or not.

Methodology bloodbath

There is an interesting twist to this. For the first time, the extent to which local authorities are able to raise tax locally is included in the calculation of grant. This new methodology has resulted in the usual bloodbath of winners and losers, but to everyone’s surprise, including David Cameron’s, a large proportion of councils worse off as a result of the new jiggery-pokery turned out to be Conservative-run councils out in the shires.

I am sure you were as unsurprised as I was when the final settlement, published on 8th February, contained some changes as a consequence.

The new methodology that caused all the rumpus did not change. You may wish to speculate, however, about whether its author was taken down to the Downing Street cellars and treated to a dose of perspective.

Instead, there was more central government largesse in the form of transitional grant of £150 million in both 16/17 and 17/18 for the councils most adversely affected by the change in revenue support grant. The threat of ‘negative grant’ – i.e. a downward adjustment to business rate tariff/top-up – was removed by further largesse of £2.3m in 17/18 and £22.8m in 18/19.

A further way of dulling the pain for the Conservative authorities that were threatening rebellion was found by adding an extra £60.5m to the Rural Services Delivery Grant in 16/17 and £30m in 17/18.

The total largesse announced amounts to £415.6m over the four-year period. That will be enough to get the government over the finishing line, which is when 100% business rates retention comes in.

However, don’t think for a moment that the devolution of business rates represents a handing over of power. We have already been told that councils won’t have the power to put the business rates up. That would be more largesse than this government would find comfortable.

Share

You may also like...

  • LGPS annual report: Little drama but investment costs at £1.29bn 21st Jul, 2021
  • LGPS webinar: Governance the key to TCFD implementation 1st Mar, 2021
  • Room151 launches Audit Committee Masterclass 28th Oct, 2021
  • Time to pause adult social care proposals 13th Apr, 2022

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’
    • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as “disappointing”
    • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council
    • Low earners at Surrey County Council receive 7.85% pay increase
    • UK Infrastructure Bank launches plan to deploy £22bn of investment
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 1 day ago

    Gove at LGA: councils to receive two-year financial settlement: Michael Gove has announced that councils will receive a two-year financial settlement from next year to provide authorities with “financial certainty” and allow them to plan ahead. The… dlvr.it/ST0kSV pic.twitter.com/wxL3UM4sGO

    Room151 1 day ago

    LGPS valuations: the digital journey: Rob Bilton explains how technology is helping to deliver one of the most complex data exercises in the world of public sector pensions. The 2022 valuations for LGPS funds in[...] dlvr.it/ST0kMq pic.twitter.com/VxjSPC2Uvo

    Room151 5 days ago

    Conrad Hall: ‘more sophisticated’ regulation needed for local government: The chair of the CIPFA/LASAAC Code Board has questioned the sophistication of financial regulation in local government and the continuing focus of the Department for Levelling Up,… dlvr.it/SSnPBV pic.twitter.com/G5d7JCWF8c

    Room151 1 week ago

    Slough Council approves plans to restructure finance department: Slough Borough Council has approved plans to restructure its finance department to enhance capacity and capability and to address a “significant weakness” in the function. The local… dlvr.it/SSf8DG pic.twitter.com/l5lmyHmkBg

    Room151 1 week ago

    Job Alert: Various Finance Roles: lnkd.in/eRKRvhJb pic.twitter.com/KkBrjXxAYD

    Room151 1 week ago

    MRP on capital loans: a step in the right direction: David Green says the latest government proposals on Minimum Revenue Provision should be welcomed by local authorities. There are still some unintended consequences, but the suggested approach for… dlvr.it/SSZ7JK pic.twitter.com/M1W9qVgYWN

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story Councils prepared ahead of banking crisis speculation
  • Next story James Bevan: The ECB’s next choice for QE and rates

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares