Poor targeting of Levelling Up Fund?

[Parjon]

The South West is absolutely an impoverished region. Natural beauty doesn't compensate for lack of jobs.

The problem with the allocations is less the direction and more that it's the equivalent of throwing small change at a chosen handful of beggars. And expecting us beggars to dance for it.

Flimsy toy town public realm proposals for low millions, bigged up by councils whose lack of talent is only matched by the Whitehall mandarins judging them.

Getting or not getting this cash will have next to no impact on peoples' lives in the vast majority of cases.

 

[yorksrob]

Actually, as someone from round there, it's high time Canterbury castle was restored to safety. I'm not sure that this is the appropriate funding stream, but it is an historic monument and should be conserved.

Canterbury isn't an impoverished region though, the restoration should be paid for by something else. Howabout the lottery foundation ?

 

[THC]

Actually, as someone from round there, it's high time Canterbury castle was restored to safety. I'm not sure that this is the appropriate funding stream, but it is an historic monument and should be conserved.

There are three strands to the Levelling Up Fund - transport and infrastructure, town centre regeneration, and culture and heritage. So it was the right place for such a bid, even if there is no overall coherence to the themes themselves.

THC

 

[cactustwirly]

I do agree with DarloRich on some of his points.
The line to Newquay is very slow and isn't that much use to most people. The money could be better used on other schemes

 

[yorksrob]

There are three strands to the Levelling Up Fund - transport and infrastructure, town centre regeneration, and culture and heritage. So it was the right place for such a bid, even if there is no overall coherence to the themes themselves.

THC

Fair play, it will be good to see it properly restored.

 

[Typhoon]

Actually, as someone from round there, it's high time Canterbury castle was restored to safety. I'm not sure that this is the appropriate funding stream, but it is an historic monument and should be conserved.

Canterbury isn't an impoverished region though, the restoration should be paid for by something else. Howabout the lottery foundation ?

Very good point.

There are three strands to the Levelling Up Fund - transport and infrastructure, town centre regeneration, and culture and heritage. So it was the right place for such a bid, even if there is no overall coherence to the themes themselves.

THC

So much for me thinking it was all about developing the high paid jobs that we keep being told we need. No wonder some of the towns in the north didn't get any cash, they should have out in for a mining, engineering or weaving museum, no use to those on the minimum wage but a Red Wall Tory would be able to boast about it come the election.

 

[Magdalia]

How many if these funded projects are in the north east? Oh yeah, thats right none. The money has gone to those vastly poor areas like Devon and Cornwall.

England's most deprived areas named as Jaywick and Blackpool

Eight of the 10 most deprived neighbourhoods are in Blackpool, according to new statistics.

www.bbc.co.uk

Most of the places at the top of the list are in the North (specifically Blackpool). But that doesn't mean there are huge issues in areas of the South.

Cornwall in the recent past has been the most deprived county, overall, in England. It may not have focussed areas of extreme and intense poverty, like Jaywick (which really does stand out from its surroundings), but rather large areas in which the previously dominant industries have died, generally without replacement, not counterbalanced by pockets of wealth or economic generation. Add to that poor quality infrastructure and the remoteness of the place from the rest of the country, and you have a lot of problems, easily comparable (sometimes disfavourably) with other ex-mining areas further norh.

The most recent (2020) ONS dataset puts Gross value-added per head of population at £18,524 per head of population for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Devon is a little higher, at £20.614.

While there are parts of Wales, in particular, that are substantially poorer in per-head terms (income being the major contributor to these figures), the figures for Cornwall are comparable for those for the region of Tees Valley and Durham (£18,718), and indeed show that the county is overall poorer than some parts of that region (including Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees - £22,505).

By any measure Cornwall is an entirely appropriate recipient of Levelling Up funding!

Hastings/Bexhill within the top 10 most deprived areas in the UK in 2019/20. Prime South East UK & bordered by wealthy Rye & Eastbourne.
Thanet, Kent named among the 20 poorest areas by the Living Wage Commission.

There are towns/cities in the South East with VERY poor areas versus what you'd actually expect.

Presumably you are quoting UK figures ? Back in the days of our EU membership Cornwall was in receipt of considerable sums precisely because it WAS one of the most deprived region of Europe, not just the Uk. I would believe EU figures rather than those coming out of Whitehall.

It all depends on which measures you choose and what level of disaggregation you choose. The underlying data is what is produced by the Office for National Statistics.

The EU data is based on an agreed regional hierarchy called the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, usually referred to as NUTS, because the original acronym was in French. In the UK NUTS1 is the 9 English regions plus Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. NUTS2 and NUTS3 are aggregations of local authorities. Cornwall is unusual in that it is a region at both NUTS2 and NUTS3, in England the only other region that's the same at both NUTS2 and NUTS3 is Lincolnshire. The Eurostat website still has documentation showing the UK NUTS hierarchy, but their statistics don't go into any more regional detail than NUTS3.

The statistics in the BBC article cover a much wider range of measures, and also drill down to local authority ward level. Jaywick is an example of a deprived ward in an otherwise well off area, Essex at NUTS2 and Essex Haven Gateway at NUTS3.

The current practice appears to be cut central government grants to councils and then offer back to them some of that reduction but only if they bid for it (at a cost of staff time) and promise to spend it on stuff the government wants. Of course those who "win" may benefit more than if they had the budget to begin with, but then there's so many other areas which then are worse off and get nothing in return.

Cut the funding to Local Authorities by fifteen billion then make them all scrape around for a state of a one-off two billion that you’ve arbitrarily allocated to certain “favoured” areas…

The total grants from the Levelling Up Fund are worth just £4.8 billion over four years. In order to reverse the decline in public services and institutions of the past 12-13 years, you'd need at least one hundred times that amount in capital funding over a similar period, plus large above-inflation rises, so 25% - 35%, this year, in revenue spending every year.

Local Government Finance was broken when Mrs Thatcher tried to introduce the Poll Tax, and it has been broken ever since. Various people have tried, but it always get put into the too difficult pile. When any politician feels the heat of these arguments about what is a tiny amount of funding, they aren't going to touch proper reform with a bargepole.

I led the development of a Levelling Up Fund round 2 bid for my local authority - we were unsuccessful but then expected to be, as the process ensured we were hobbled at the outset.

Why? Because all authorities were allocated to three categories and mine was placed in category 3, or least in need of levelling up. This despite having high levels of both deprivation and inequality according to the conventionally accepted measures (IMD2019 for deprivation and the GINI coefficient for inequality). It turns out that DLUHC commissioned its own index, which gave different results entirely. And this index was only published after the fact, which meant we had nothing to challenge until too late.

I do not have an issue with the successful bidders - good luck to them all, some very worthwhile projects within - but am questioning whether it is worth diverting scarce resources once again for a further bid into round 3 when the odds are so stacked against us. Simply put, we should not have to compete with our neighbours for ever scarcer funding pots, spending money, time and effort on bid development that should instead be used to deliver public services. The whole system is farcical and its competitive nature undermines the very concept of levelling up.

THC

Thanks for sharing this. As someone who was peripherally involved in this sort of thing a long while ago, I feel your pain!

 

[Starmill]

Local Government Finance was broken when Mrs Thatcher tried to introduce the Poll Tax, and it has been broken ever since. Various people have tried, but it always get put into the too difficult pile. When any politician feels the heat of these arguments about what is a tiny amount of funding, they aren't going to touch proper reform with a bargepole.

Well yes there is that. However although the Blair and Brown governments utterly failed to deal with the actual structural issues, they didn't treat local authorities like punching bags, deliberately trying to defund them to make their political rivals look bad. The way the Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak governments have treated local authorities in England is obscene. Every single one of them should be as ashamed as Thatcher for the damage they've done to local government.

 

[The Ham]

Well yes there is that. However although the Blair and Brown governments utterly failed to deal with the actual structural issues, they didn't treat local authorities like punching bags, deliberately trying to defund them to make their political rivals look bad. The way the Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak governments have treated local authorities in England is obscene. Every single one of them should be as ashamed as Thatcher for the damage they've done to local government.

The other big factor, which was recognised under Blair but not dealt with, is the significant issue of adult social care - which had been getting more and more expensive as the population proportionately gets older.

We got so close to fixing it with the announcement of NI changes to create the funding for a National Care Service, but then they got taken away.

If that had worked, with the government owning care homes, it could have actually reduced the per person cost. As there wouldn't have been so many companies needing to take profits (care agencies, care homes, etc.).

Likewise it would have potentially made managing resources easier, for example staff based in Aldershot (Hampshire) could have dealt with people in Farnham (Surrey)
rather than them having to come from Guildford (Surrey).

There's even examples of villages being on county boundaries (having expended since their creation) which have careers from different places deal with the different parts of the village (with the added travel costs and wasted time), which could be dealt with more sensibly.

It's yet another thing which generations don't care about until it impacts them, although there's often exceptions in that there's a fair number of millennials who (by listening to podcasts - much as then having their ears with headphones in annoys older generations) are clued up on things like this.

It's one of the reasons that they are bucking the trend and not getting more right wing as they get older - the same studies actually suggest that they maybe getting more left wing.

Social care: 'Jo's care will cost £1.5k a week - the system is broken'

A BBC poll reveals people's worries about social care. So what is the new government going to do?

www.bbc.co.uk

The government has promised funding to recruit more care workers from abroad and £500m to help local authorities provide care packages this winter for those leaving hospital. Changes, to help people cover their personal care costs, are due to come into effect next October. They include a more generous means-test and a lifetime cap on care costs of £86,000. But the care sector is calling on the government to explain how it will pay for social care after ministers scrapped plans for the National Insurance levy, which was earmarked to pay for the social care cap. Yesterday, England's county councils urged the government to delay its social care reforms, warning of serious staffing and financial pressures. Until details become clearer, the 900,000 people living with dementia will have to wait. Bill says he is determined to value his days with his "number one girl." "We all know there's no happy ending," he adds. "There's only one outcome. But we can enjoy the time we have together until that outcome comes."

Millennials are becoming less conservative as they age, new data finds

‘Millennials and Generation Z are going to save the world,’ one Twitter user writes

www.independent.co.uk

Twitter users are expressing their excitement over new data which found that millennials are becoming less conservative as they continue to age.

In a piece published by The Financial Times, John Burn-Murdoch looked at a series of US and UK election surveys, which were conducted from 1964 up to 2022. After looking at the data, he discovered how different generations’ political perspectives have changed over the years, including the views of millennials, who are people born between 1981 and 1996. Burn-Murdoch found that millennials in the US are “tacking much further to the left on economics” than previous generations, due to the fact that they are reaching “political maturity in the aftermath of the global financial crisis”. This could also be why they’re in favour of greater wealth distribution from the rich to the poor.

This is also evident in Britain, as the generation is becoming more left wing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at millennials’ ages. He suggested that this was not due to Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss’s time in office, as she sparked widespread criticism after announcing a major tax U-turn. Instead, he explained that millennials “developed different values to previous generations”, which are “shaped by experiences unique to them,” so they do not feel like they have the same views as conservatives.

Burn-Murdoch also included a chart that compared political views of bombers, Gen-Xers, silent generation, and millennials. However, millennial voters are not following the chart’s trend, where generations have become more conservative as they age.

According to the results, the millennials “in both Britain and the US are by far the least conservative 35-year-olds in recorded history”. Burn-Murdoch also found that at the age of 35, millennials will be less conservative than the national average.

On Twitter, multiple people praised these results and noted how millennials’ political stance could be making a difference in the world. “It’s nice to see that we clearly have data to back up what the vibes have been saying for a while, that millennials are left wing in a way that previous generations weren’t,” one wrote. “This is just sensational. Right wing parties having to ask themselves how to appeal to 40somethings.”

 

[Sm5]

£14mn for a siding in Banstead, a station with a handful of passengers daily ?

Sutton needs investment in public transport, but i’m not sure how this helps ?

I would have thought a new island platform / turnback in Cheam would be better ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2023 ==

If that had worked, with the government owning care homes, it could have actually reduced the per person cost. As there wouldn't have been so many companies needing to take profits (care agencies, care homes, etc.).

Likewise it would have potentially made managing resources easier, for example staff based in Aldershot (Hampshire) could have dealt with people in Farnham (Surrey)
rather than them having to come from Guildford (Surrey).

the problem with the government owning anything, and running not for profit, is that it immediately turns into uncontrolled waste of funds supported by the tax payer. As cost cuts come in, the skills and resources leave. It then inevitably becomes a thread bare operation, feasted on by private sector contractors who exploit the lack of inhouse skills and resources to support it, and the savings internally means the external costs balloon.

Take your pick, but most government meddling projects end the same way.. uncontrolled taxpayer funding, privatisation at loss or bankruptcy and loss…

We a strive to American lifestyle ideals, but we don’t have American money, we cant expect the government to step in and do it for us, as the country doesnt have that global influence either. Were just another European country at the end of the day.

 

[THC]

So much for me thinking it was all about developing the high paid jobs that we keep being told we need. No wonder some of the towns in the north didn't get any cash, they should have out in for a mining, engineering or weaving museum, no use to those on the minimum wage but a Red Wall Tory would be able to boast about it come the election.

Without delving into the realm of politics, I'll just say that the Levelling Up White Paper, published last February, contains twelve levelling up "missions", cross-cutting themes that if funded properly could have gone some way to addressing the regional and local imbalances that the policy was designed to address. Yet the refusal of the Treasury to allocate any new money to it has largely neutered the impact, meaning that the subsequent Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill currently limping its way through Parliament lacks any real substance and the agenda has been reduced to ever more meaningless soundbites - rather as it was before Michael Gove first became Secretary of State for Levelling Up and actually gave the policy some intellectual heft.

THC

 

[The Ham]

the problem with the government owning anything, and running not for profit, is that it immediately turns into uncontrolled waste of funds supported by the tax payer. As cost cuts come in, the skills and resources leave. It then inevitably becomes a thread bare operation, feasted on by private sector contractors who exploit the lack of inhouse skills and resources to support it, and the savings internally means the external costs balloon.

Take your pick, but most government meddling projects end the same way.. uncontrolled taxpayer funding, privatisation at loss or bankruptcy and loss…

We a strive to American lifestyle ideals, but we don’t have American money, we cant expect the government to step in and do it for us, as the country doesnt have that global influence either. Were just another European country at the end of the day.

Often because there's not the understanding on the value vs cost of things.

For example is it better to have a doctor manage their appointments and a lot of their "paperwork" or have admin staff do that work and free up the doctors to treat people?

The "cost" of that admin staff may be £30,000, however if by employing 3 you gain the same time back as 2 doctors, then the value of them is higher than the cost.

However in the press' eyes those admin staff are taking money from front line resources and so the government sets targets to reduce admin staff headcount, however that then means that the doctors can't see as many people at they could before (and the NHS needs more money to do the same amount of work).

If you want an example of how bad the private sector can be, look at the amount the US government spends per capita compared to other countries - it's far more, yet it only treats a fraction of their population compared to those countries with universal healthcare.

With the care sector, we've already got to the point where there's very low "in house" care providers, and so we've got those high costs already.

 

[yorksrob]

£14mn for a siding in Banstead, a station with a handful of passengers daily ?

Sutton needs investment in public transport, but i’m not sure how this helps ?

I would have thought a new island platform / turnback in Cheam would be better ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2023 ==


the problem with the government owning anything, and running not for profit, is that it immediately turns into uncontrolled waste of funds supported by the tax payer. As cost cuts come in, the skills and resources leave. It then inevitably becomes a thread bare operation, feasted on by private sector contractors who exploit the lack of inhouse skills and resources to support it, and the savings internally means the external costs balloon.

Take your pick, but most government meddling projects end the same way.. uncontrolled taxpayer funding, privatisation at loss or bankruptcy and loss…

We a strive to American lifestyle ideals, but we don’t have American money, we cant expect the government to step in and do it for us, as the country doesnt have that global influence either. Were just another European country at the end of the day.

This all boils down to the same problem.

Until the country becomes more self-sufficient in its basic needs such as energy, it will continue to leak wealth.

If they really want to tackle inflation long term, they need to tackle this problem, otherwise every time another country screws up, we'll be hit with inflation. And the answer will be the same - whack up interest rates and tank the domestic economy, which is not sustainable again and again

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2023 ==

Often because there's not the understanding on the value vs cost of things.

For example is it better to have a doctor manage their appointments and a lot of their "paperwork" or have admin staff do that work and free up the doctors to treat people?

The "cost" of that admin staff may be £30,000, however if by employing 3 you gain the same time back as 2 doctors, then the value of them is higher than the cost.

However in the press' eyes those admin staff are taking money from front line resources and so the government sets targets to reduce admin staff headcount, however that then means that the doctors can't see as many people at they could before (and the NHS needs more money to do the same amount of work).

If you want an example of how bad the private sector can be, look at the amount the US government spends per capita compared to other countries - it's far more, yet it only treats a fraction of their population compared to those countries with universal healthcare.

With the care sector, we've already got to the point where there's very low "in house" care providers, and so we've got those high costs already.

Indeed. You can get away with a little bit of privatised healthcare around the edges, but it simply doesn't work on a population wide basis

 

[Yew]

We a strive to American lifestyle ideals, but we don’t have American money, we cant expect the government to step in and do it for us, as the country doesnt have that global influence either. Were just another European country at the end of the day.

You don't build a world leading economy based on cuts, you do it by stimulating growth and making strategic investment. Unfortunately it seems these days that the Conservative Party is more interested in giving a quick buck to their donors, than in running the country.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It shouldn't be a competition but it is and

I'm not sure how it could not be a competition: There aren't unlimited resources for this kind of capital investment, and you have to find a way to ensure the money is spent on things that are worthwhile. How else could you ensure that? You presumably want some local input, which means it's up to local authorities to suggest schemes in their own areas, and you definitely want some means to evaluate the proposed schemes to make sure you're not wasting money on some poorly-thought-out proposal that won't achieve anything significant. That would appear to lead to precisely the mechanism we have, where local authorities bid against each other for the investment. Maybe there are details of how the fund was managed that you could question, and maybe you feel there are different schemes that you would have preferred the money to go on, or maybe you feel much more money should've been allocated in the first place, but I'm not sure you can sensibly criticise the fact that authorities are competing against each other: That's almost inevitable if you want to have a decent way of determining where to invest.

the game is bent with areas that need funding the most loosing out in favour of those that don't need funding at all or as much as those that do. The money being spaffed on trains in Cornwall that only richer people ( because if you are really poor the train isn't an option) will be able to use could do wonders for local bus services in the north east to pick just one example.

Is it directly comparable? The money being spent on the Cornwall metro appears to be (one-off) infrastructure investment to allow the metro to run. You seem to be arguing for instead providing an ongoing subsidy for buses in the North. An ongoing subsidy may well be worthwhile, but it would be current, not capital, expenditure, and therefore out of scope for an investment fund.

 

[THC]

I'm not sure how it could not be a competition: There aren't unlimited resources for this kind of capital investment, and you have to find a way to ensure the money is spent on things that are worthwhile. How else could you ensure that? You presumably want some local input, which means it's up to local authorities to suggest schemes in their own areas, and you definitely want some means to evaluate the proposed schemes to make sure you're not wasting money on some poorly-thought-out proposal that won't achieve anything significant.

Yet the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, one of two companion pots to the Levelling Up Fund, is distributed on an allocative rather than a competitive basis. Go figure.

THC

 

[Richardr]

Often because there's not the understanding on the value vs cost of things.

For example is it better to have a doctor manage their appointments and a lot of their "paperwork" or have admin staff do that work and free up the doctors to treat people?

The "cost" of that admin staff may be £30,000, however if by employing 3 you gain the same time back as 2 doctors, then the value of them is higher than the cost.

However in the press' eyes those admin staff are taking money from front line resources and so the government sets targets to reduce admin staff headcount, however that then means that the doctors can't see as many people at they could before (and the NHS needs more money to do the same amount of work).

Agree completely. What's more we are currently short of about 8,000 GPs for example. Anything that can be done to ensure those remaining can apply all of their time to their main role, and have others do the admin, etc., one would have thought was a very good idea.

 

[johncrossley]

Until the country becomes more self-sufficient in its basic needs such as energy, it will continue to leak wealth.

Why does the country need to be self-sufficient? That's isolationist Brexit-like talk. You can't expect every country to have everything it needs within its political boundary. Luxembourg is one of the richest countries in the world but has to import virtually all its energy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yet the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, one of two companion pots to the Levelling Up Fund, is distributed on an allocative rather than a competitive basis. Go figure.

THC

Interesting. Could you say a bit more about that that fund is for and how it allocates its spending?

 

[THC]

Interesting. Could you say a bit more about that that fund is for and how it allocates its spending?

All in here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ospectus/uk-shared-prosperity-fund-prospectus

THC

 

[Starmill]

The various funds have been prepared and disbursed in the same year and year after the census results came out. They could have been simply paid on a per capita basis to every local authority, or paid as such but with some general restrictions on what the capital can be spent on. We could also have kept part of the forumla as based on deprivation to weight money more towards poorer areas. This would have achieved much lower administrative cost than preparing and evaluating bids, and it would likely have resulted in better value for money. But instead, for purely party-political reasons, we've got a total mess which is less effective and highly disputed.

 

[yorksrob]

Why does the country need to be self-sufficient? That's isolationist Brexit-like talk. You can't expect every country to have everything it needs within its political boundary. Luxembourg is one of the richest countries in the world but has to import virtually all its energy.

Because every time there's a problem somewhere else, we get hit with supply chain problems, which leads to inflation, and the only answer they have for that is to tank the economy.

 

[johncrossley]

Because every time there's a problem somewhere else, we get hit with supply chain problems, which leads to inflation, and the only answer they have for that is to tank the economy.

Inflation is happening worldwide and economies worldwide are approaching the situation in broadly the same way. What you are basically saying is that a country that doesn't have natural resources can't survive, which is evidently not the case. You are calling into question the viability of most small countries, especially microstates.

 

[yorksrob]

Inflation is happening worldwide and economies worldwide are approaching the situation in broadly the same way. What you are basically saying is that a country that doesn't have natural resources can't survive, which is evidently not the case. You are calling into question the viability of most small countries, especially microstates.

I'm not saying that such countries can't survive. I am saying that they will inevitably be far more exposed to economic risks outside of their control.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not sure how it could not be a competition: There aren't unlimited resources for this kind of capital investment, and you have to find a way to ensure the money is spent on things that are worthwhile. How else could you ensure that? You presumably want some local input, which means it's up to local authorities to suggest schemes in their own areas, and you definitely want some means to evaluate the proposed schemes to make sure you're not wasting money on some poorly-thought-out proposal that won't achieve anything significant. That would appear to lead to precisely the mechanism we have, where local authorities bid against each other for the investment. Maybe there are details of how the fund was managed that you could question, and maybe you feel there are different schemes that you would have preferred the money to go on, or maybe you feel much more money should've been allocated in the first place, but I'm not sure you can sensibly criticise the fact that authorities are competing against each other: That's almost inevitable if you want to have a decent way of determining where to invest.

Whilst resources are limited, a lot of this funding has been created at the expense of reliable funding (to councils). Many councils would rather to be able to find these sorts of things from their own budgets.

For example Hampshire recently voted through cuts of £80 million yet still expect to have a shortfall of £200 million (over the next few years).

 

[yorksrob]

In a way, Local Authorities are their own worst enemies. Every time there's a round of cuts they economise, do more with less, continue to function etc. This just leads the Government to come back with more cuts.

 

[Starmill]

Whilst resources are limited, a lot of this funding has been created at the expense of reliable funding (to councils). Many councils would rather to be able to find these sorts of things from their own budgets.

For example Hampshire recently voted through cuts of £80 million yet still expect to have a shortfall of £200 million (over the next few years).

Just increasing the block grants to local authorities in England would also cost less in administration than one part of the government constantly preparing bids and then another part evaluating them. Both jobs need to be done by skilled and highly paid staff, and plenty of councils will hire consultants to give them the best possible chance with their bids - can they be blamed for that? We could spend nearly all of that money on actual infrastructure rather than thousands of pages worth of electronic documents if we wanted...

 

[Typhoon]

Just increasing the block grants to local authorities in England would also cost less in administration than one part of the government constantly preparing bids and then another part evaluating them. Both jobs need to be done by skilled and highly paid staff, and plenty of councils will hire consultants to give them the best possible chance with their bids - can they be blamed for that? We could spend nearly all of that money on actual infrastructure rather than thousands of pages worth of electronic documents if we wanted...

While that is true, there is one minus from ministers' perspectives. Fewer photo-ops. Dehenna Davidson (Minister for Leveling Up) was on 'Any Questions' this week, relating how she had been in Cleethorpes and Barnsley hearing about the projects the money is going to (it wasn't difficult to find some photos and video clips of the minister being shown around, doubtless finding their way onto local news programmes). Interestingly when asked about Leveling Up on Any Questions, she seemed to stress the employment opportunities offered through the cash, and little about heritage.

 

[Starmill]

While that is true, there is one minus from ministers' perspectives. Fewer photo-ops. Dehenna Davidson (Minister for Leveling Up) was on 'Any Questions' this week, relating how she had been in Cleethorpes and Barnsley hearing about the projects the money is going to (it wasn't difficult to find some photos and video clips of the minister being shown around, doubtless finding their way onto local news programmes). Interestingly when asked about Leveling Up on Any Questions, she seemed to stress the employment opportunities offered through the cash, and little about heritage.

Indeed. That's precisely the mismanagement I'm accusing the government of.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2023 ==

In a way, Local Authorities are their own worst enemies. Every time there's a round of cuts they economise, do more with less, continue to function etc. This just leads the Government to come back with more cuts.

To an extent the local authorities are in a double bind. The government imposes statutory duties on local authorities, which essentially takes out the majority of their budgets on thing like children's services or social care, or certain kinds of support for disabled people. But local authorities aren't permitted to raise more money through council tax except at the behest of Ministers. Most local authorities will be losing substantial funds next year in real terms because they aren't permitted to put council tax up by inflation. The government then does not like giving them devolution deals that include the authority to go to the market to borrow money. Nor does the Treasury favour repayable loans to authorities. The Private Finance Initiative or Public-Private Partnerships were sold as solutions, but they've rightly fallen out of favour for the vast extra costs that they can add over the lifetime of such restrictive contracts. Finally special investments in business aren't safe enough for most local authorities to take on, as they've found out to their enormous cost during the pandemic. As such they can work up great business cases for projects which then never get funding because they don't get the cash.

 

[Richardr]

In a way, Local Authorities are their own worst enemies. Every time there's a round of cuts they economise, do more with less, continue to function etc. This just leads the Government to come back with more cuts.

What is the alternative for them?

Given the number of local authorities is this an issue for all of them?