David Cameron's comments last week to the LGA conference in Harrogate that he had ‘bad news – there won't be a lot more money' – seemed almost touchingly out of date as if written in a distant, long-gone world where grant funding was still heading north rather than down the pan. For the reality was that not only had most delegates long ago abandoned any hope of grant increases post-2011, but they were now offering opinions on which double-digit figure cut was most likely. As the conference week wore on the figure seemed to get worse with delegates winding each other up into a frenzy of pessimism. Will the cut in annual local government grant post-2011 be 10% or 18% or 25% or 30%? Will districts disappear altogether, merging to save money? Certainly, no-one could accuse local government of having its head in the sand even as the politicians, such as Mr Cameron, tread delicately around the subject of spending cuts for fear of frightening the electorate (and public sector voters). But who is more correct when it comes to forecasting the scale of cuts – the pessimists or the politicians? Into this debate theAudit Commission's Steve Bundred charged last weekend like a herd of bison. Confirming the pessimists among LGA delegates, his Sunday newspaper article warned of a need to slash £50bn after next year. The only difference was that in his view this would still only bring public spending to the levels above 2003/04. The Monday media seized on his comments on freezing public sector pay but actually more relevant, especially to local government, was his insistence that there is still plenty of efficiency to be squeezed out, especially in education and health, and that such cuts are not as dire as suggested in comparison to a few years ago. He managed therefore to be both pessimistic and optimistic at the same time, which is quite an achievement. However it may be scant consolation to councils for whom 2003/04 is an eon ago and what matters is the immediate future. Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
