The truth behind Labour’s claimed £21million “black hole”
The truth behind Labour’s claimed £21million “black hole”
The new Labour administration for Birmingham City Council
has excitedly released a press statement claiming to have found a £21million
‘black hole’ in this years budget. See http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2012/07/council-faces-budget-%E2%80%98black-hole%E2%80%99/
Any political party taking over an administration will go
out of their way to rubbish the previous administration. So first you have to
apply the “they would say that, wouldn’t they” filter.
What the press release doesn’t say is the following:
1) The
new administration is withholding the final accounts for the financial year
2011/12. They should have been made public at the end of June. It is safe to
assume that these accounts are not to the liking of the Labour administration,
since they most likely show a balanced budget by the previous administration.
2) The
claimed £21million ‘black hole’ is really early year ‘financial pressures’ and
on a par with ‘month 2’ financial pressures seen in recent years.
Just
to explain these monthly ‘financial pressures’. Each month, the Cabinet (or
indeed any large corporate organisation) produces a financial report giving an
update on how the organisation is keeping within its budget. This report will
explain where the organisation is likely to overspend by the end of the financial
year – these are ‘financial pressures’. The report will most likely explain what
measures are in place to reduce that financial pressure. This part and parcel of
basic budgetary control that any organisation will do. The objective is to
reduce all the financial pressures down to zero by the end of financial year,
so that the annual budget balances.
So let’s compare how Albert’s £21million financial pressure
compares to previous year sand how the
final Council budget balanced? See the below table
Financial year
|
Date the Cabinet report was presented
|
Month 2 revenue financial pressure (£millions)
|
Date the Cabinet report for year end spending was
presented
|
Revenue Overspend (underspend) at the end of Month 12
(£millions)
|
2012/13
|
16/07/2012
|
21.3
|
||
2011/12
|
25/07/2011
|
14.0
|
Withheld
|
|
2010/11
|
12/07/2010
|
16.9
|
27/06/2011
|
(26.9)
|
2009/10
|
27/07/2009
|
19.7
|
28/06/2010
|
(25.5)
|
2008/09
|
28/07/2008
|
0.6
|
29/06/2009
|
0.7
|
2007/08
|
30/07/2007
|
4.1
|
23/06/2008
|
1.7
|
2006/07
|
31/07/2006
|
1.8
|
25/06/2007
|
(0.2)
|
2005/06
|
25/07/2005
|
3.4
|
26/06/2006
|
(6.4)
|
2004/05
|
13/09/2004
|
21.9 (month 3
pressure)
|
27/06/2005
|
(4.8)
|
2003/04
|
28/06/2004
|
(7.6)
|
As you will see above, the Council had a financial pressure
of £21.9million in month 2 in 2004/05, yet by the end of the year had reduced this
to an underspend of £4.8million.
Also, the Council had a financial pressure of £19.73million
in month 2 in 2009/10, yet by the end of the year had reduced this to an
underspend of £25.5million.
So as you can see a £21million financial pressure in month 2
is nothing unusual. We’ve had similar pressures in other years and they’ve been
reduced to zero. Yes, the £21million pressure will require alot of work to
reduce.
There are three ways of dealing with this £21million financial
pressure, these being:
a) Look
at ways of making the Council more efficient
b) Look
at new ways of raising income for the Council, that does not involve raising
the Council tax.
c) Close
down services that the Council provides
d) Raise
Council Tax above inflation.
The previous administration dealt with their financial pressures
by using both options (a) and (b). Past history of Albert Bore’s last administration
in Birmingham shows that he’ll go for options (c) and (d).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home