Half a billion or so
This is what the Press Notice from the Treasury says:
'New spending plans, announced today, will provide for spending by the Welsh Assembly Government to grow by an average annual rate of 2.4 per cent in real terms over the next three years. Spending will be higher than in 2007-08 by £0.7billion in 2008-09, £1.4 billion in 2009-10 and £2.2 billion in 2010 -2011."
That takes us from £14 billion to £14.7 billion to £15.4 billion to £16.2 billion by 2010-11.
The Wales Office press release refers to Wales receving £15.8 billion (£15.74 actually) by 2010-11.
I wish I didn't have to use the term 'baseline' but it doesn't sound to me as though everyone's starting to count the increase from the same baseline. Mind you there might be a perfectly simple explanation for it all. And what's £400 million or so between friends?
I'm Betsan Powys, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Wales' political editor. I'll be blogging the inside track on .
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Don't say it too loudly, but the Wales Office is right. And so are the other lot. They're using the same baseline, just not finishing the calculation at the same point. But there is no getting away from the fact that this is a spectacularly bad settlement for Wales.
Rhydian
So the Wales Office says this is a 2.2% increase and WAG says it's a 1.8% increase (which puts them in agreement with Adam Price). I'm sure you're right that both can provide reams of figures to explain their calculations but somewhere in the middle is a story, one about a health underspend in England and the consequence for Wales, under the Barnett formula, is a drop in the allocation to the Assembly Government's budget. We're talking £260 million. Andrew Davies told me this evening that he was still talking to the Treasury about it and that 'they know how the WAG feels about it'.
Yes, they're all right about the figures. Mathematics may be the Queen of sciences, but statistics is the scheming Grand Vizier. And this is a terrible result for Wales.
But £260 million isn't unexpected. The state of the public finances didn't really give Labour much room, and it was Gordon Brown who designed that particular hole. That need to be spelt out clearly - WAG, Plaid Cymru and even Welsh Labour will not be to blame for the Assembly budget squeeze to follow. The fault lies squarely with Bown and the stupidity of Labour in Westminster.
Calculations for spending on One Wales were all based on government statements and promises made since the beginning of the year. But the Westminster lot changed their minds when Gordon Brown's economic policies caved in - and that was passed on to Wales through the absurd Barnett Formula.
But One Wales can still be delivered. After all, we have to be thankful for small mercies - it could easily have been so much worse than £260 million!
"Gordon Brown's economic policies caved in"...EH..1929 again? Phillip Snowdon??? But why should we worry? It just brings use closer to the final collapse of capitalism and our planned for, "Socialism in One Cymru" doesn't it? Adam's been working on it since lunchtime! He has his Marx and Shirley Williams open!
In the interim, I'm just overjoyed that Helen Mary will still be able to dress in an appropriate style as befits our highly respected Assembly! And...keep the "younger" AM element in line with their lurid scoop necked purple T. Shirts, gypsy skirts and "bootshoes". And that's just little Alun Cairns...(Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú2 AM/PM "fashion" item Today)
Thought you looked V. smart on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú2W Betsan! A lot better than that "scruff" with the open-necked shirt...This is WALES, not b. Charlotte Street!!!
Adam Price talks about Wales losing out to the tune of £700 million, can anyone explain that one?
The £700 million figure is also correct. See, we knew that this would be a CSR where spending slowed down, and Labour in Westminster warned everyone beforehand about where the spending would be slowed down. The One Wales document was drawn up with those figures in mind.
But yesterday saw a few blanks filled in, meaning that Wales lost over £260 million, on top of what was already lost, adding up to £700 million. So Adam is giving us the full picture, and quite right too!
Arfon - Adam might be discussing the expenditure on the Olympics and its classification as part of this stupid formula...If the spend is classed as "UK wide" then it ain't in the Barnett equation.
Rhydian
I wish you'd been my maths teacher. Everyone's sums are worked out differently, everyone's answers are different but everyone's right ..!
Well, that's how it goes - politicians aren't stupid so they won't spew dodgy figures. It's just that there are quite a few tricks you can use to make your statistics more palatable. So the figures can be spun all kinds of ways.
Let's put this in straightforward word.
Labour were going to slow spending this year - not reverse it, just not as big an increase as in budgets for the last decade. In the area of health, a certain amount of spending was promised. Through the Barnett Formula, which considers the size of the Welsh population as a proportion of England's, this would have a certain affect on the WAG budget.
This figure was used by Plaid Cymru when drawing up the coalition government's programme. Unfortunately, Labour in Westminster underspent on health - that is, they slowed spending by more than they said they would. That had the knock-on affect on the WAG budget through the Barnett Formula. So Wales knew it would get less this time - but got even less than it thought it would.
Can't explain any better than that, but feel free to include this in a post if you want Betsan - I think people are a bit fed up with these various, opaque figures floating about.