The ArgusHundreds of votes come in for Argus council tax referendum (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Hundreds of votes come in for Argus Brighton and Hove council tax referendum

The Argus: Hundreds of votes come in for Argus council tax referendum Hundreds of votes come in for Argus council tax referendum

Votes for The Argus referendum on a planned council tax rise of 4.75% are flooding in.

Brighton and Hove City Council’s minority Green administration revealed its proposal for a 4.75% council tax rise for 2014/15 last week.

It claimed the move, which works out as an increase of £5 a month for a Band D household, would help it preserve services such as care for the elderly and refuse collections in the face of government cuts.


MORE:


But a stalemate has been created with the Conservatives backing a freeze while Labour appear committed to a 2% rise – the most allowed without holding a city-wide referendum costing £230,000.

With the budget not being set until a council meeting on February 27 The Argus launched its own poll asking if people would pay an extra 4.75% to protect local services.

Just two days after opening, hundreds have had their say.

So far more than 2,000 unique users have voted on our website – with latest results showing 600 voting yes (27%) and 1,590 voting no (73%).

About 50 forms have also been received through the post.

Among them was Zoe Polydorou, of Charlotte Street, Brighton, who after voting no, said: “I am a single person, living in a studio. I am astonished that my council tax is £75 a month.

“I am constantly aware of my expenditure and keep my spending to a minimum – I am actually extremely efficient.

“The council needs to take a leaf out of my book.”

John Penfold, of Whitehawk Road, Brighton, said: “How can the Greens take such a big chance of a smack in the face?”

It comes as a letter from a number of high-profile figures was published in a national newspaper in support to the Green council’s referendum call.

The letter, whose signatories include Labour’s Baroness Ruth Lister, Chair of Compass Neil Lawson and John Hilary, the executive director of War on Want, described the referendum as a “bold commitment to democracy and equality”.

It added: “Everyone is feeling squeezed as a result of the Tories' draconian cuts to local government and public services, but a political contest over which party will manage austerity more effectively won't change the terms of debate.”

Council leader Jason Kitcat said: “The growing support for our social care referendum proposals show that it is a |principled and forward-thinking approach.

“The huge pressure on our social care services means now is the time for the people decide whether they support a 4.75% council tax rise to support our city's most vulnerable through the next few years of severe government cuts.”

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:05pm Fri 24 Jan 14

corriesmum@hotmail.com says...

I would support an increase in Council Tax if I knew it really was going towards the preservation of services. In practice it will only go towards more of the Green's lunatic schemes, like the ludicrous loan for the i360 - if commercial funders will not support it, its because it has no hope of making a profit, so the likelihood is that the council tax payers will end up repaying the loan. Also the Council clearly has sufficient money to spend a fortune putting 20 mph signage on hundreds of roads, spend hundreds of thousands on sorting out travellers (who are entirely entitled to live how they like, but why do they have to do it at our expense? - I pay for my living costs, why don't travellers?), and spending money on traffic schemes which will probably result in deaths, e.g. the proposed cycle line round the Vogue Gyratory.
I would support an increase in Council Tax if I knew it really was going towards the preservation of services. In practice it will only go towards more of the Green's lunatic schemes, like the ludicrous loan for the i360 - if commercial funders will not support it, its because it has no hope of making a profit, so the likelihood is that the council tax payers will end up repaying the loan. Also the Council clearly has sufficient money to spend a fortune putting 20 mph signage on hundreds of roads, spend hundreds of thousands on sorting out travellers (who are entirely entitled to live how they like, but why do they have to do it at our expense? - I pay for my living costs, why don't travellers?), and spending money on traffic schemes which will probably result in deaths, e.g. the proposed cycle line round the Vogue Gyratory. corriesmum@hotmail.com
  • Score: 11

2:49pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Eugenius says...

corriesmum@hotmail.c
om
wrote:
I would support an increase in Council Tax if I knew it really was going towards the preservation of services. In practice it will only go towards more of the Green's lunatic schemes, like the ludicrous loan for the i360 - if commercial funders will not support it, its because it has no hope of making a profit, so the likelihood is that the council tax payers will end up repaying the loan. Also the Council clearly has sufficient money to spend a fortune putting 20 mph signage on hundreds of roads, spend hundreds of thousands on sorting out travellers (who are entirely entitled to live how they like, but why do they have to do it at our expense? - I pay for my living costs, why don't travellers?), and spending money on traffic schemes which will probably result in deaths, e.g. the proposed cycle line round the Vogue Gyratory.
A lot of people are saying the same thing, which is good news.

The money which would be raised by the additional 2.75% is guaranteed to be spent on Adult Social Care and supporting voluntary sector charities.

We need to do a better job of explaining that money for projects such as the Lewes Road comes from other external sources (£4m granted by the Department of Transport in this example).

i360 is a special case, the construction money if this goes ahead is not coming out of council tax but from a loan from the national Public Works Loan Board. By acting as agent the council would earn £1m a year from the deal, which would help maintain and regenerate the seafront.

Travellers are eligible to pay council tax the same as you or I. One of the advantages of the proposed official camp site at Horsdean is that it will be easier to collect rent and council tax.
[quote][p][bold]corriesmum@hotmail.c om[/bold] wrote: I would support an increase in Council Tax if I knew it really was going towards the preservation of services. In practice it will only go towards more of the Green's lunatic schemes, like the ludicrous loan for the i360 - if commercial funders will not support it, its because it has no hope of making a profit, so the likelihood is that the council tax payers will end up repaying the loan. Also the Council clearly has sufficient money to spend a fortune putting 20 mph signage on hundreds of roads, spend hundreds of thousands on sorting out travellers (who are entirely entitled to live how they like, but why do they have to do it at our expense? - I pay for my living costs, why don't travellers?), and spending money on traffic schemes which will probably result in deaths, e.g. the proposed cycle line round the Vogue Gyratory.[/p][/quote]A lot of people are saying the same thing, which is good news. The money which would be raised by the additional 2.75% is guaranteed to be spent on Adult Social Care and supporting voluntary sector charities. We need to do a better job of explaining that money for projects such as the Lewes Road comes from other external sources (£4m granted by the Department of Transport in this example). i360 is a special case, the construction money if this goes ahead is not coming out of council tax but from a loan from the national Public Works Loan Board. By acting as agent the council would earn £1m a year from the deal, which would help maintain and regenerate the seafront. Travellers are eligible to pay council tax the same as you or I. One of the advantages of the proposed official camp site at Horsdean is that it will be easier to collect rent and council tax. Eugenius
  • Score: -10

2:53pm Fri 24 Jan 14

brightonline says...

With Tim Ridgway leaving the Schmargus today, who is going to let us know the outcome?

Would the last jounalist please turn out the light?
With Tim Ridgway leaving the Schmargus today, who is going to let us know the outcome? Would the last jounalist please turn out the light? brightonline
  • Score: 2

3:32pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Vigilia says...

"Travellers are eligible to pay council tax the same as you or I. One of the advantages of the proposed official camp site at Horsdean is that it will be easier to collect rent and council tax."
That was the argument for the transit site that we taxpayers subsidise to the tune of £700 per day. Travellers of every description cost us £2,000 a day that could be better employed caring for the "vulnerable." The Green administration has spent more on travellers in the past two years than the previous Conservative administration in its four years term.
"Travellers are eligible to pay council tax the same as you or I. One of the advantages of the proposed official camp site at Horsdean is that it will be easier to collect rent and council tax." That was the argument for the transit site that we taxpayers subsidise to the tune of £700 per day. Travellers of every description cost us £2,000 a day that could be better employed caring for the "vulnerable." The Green administration has spent more on travellers in the past two years than the previous Conservative administration in its four years term. Vigilia
  • Score: 10

4:35pm Fri 24 Jan 14

wexler53 says...

"The letter, whose signatories include Labour’s Baroness Ruth Lister, Chair of Compass Neil Lawson and John Hilary, the executive director of War on Want, described the referendum as a “bold commitment to democracy and equality”.

Since Kit Kat and his green imbecilic colleagues have run the city, democracy has been ignored totally.

The referendum is simply a political shenanigan to divert attention from just how totally useless these twerps are at running the city.

If they want to play at national politics, they should try to get into Westminster. Brighton & Hove and it's hard pressed council tax payers have no place in this nonsense and the greens should clear off now and leave us in peace.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and after their Brighton experiment, the greens will be completely shot as a political group.
"The letter, whose signatories include Labour’s Baroness Ruth Lister, Chair of Compass Neil Lawson and John Hilary, the executive director of War on Want, described the referendum as a “bold commitment to democracy and equality”. Since Kit Kat and his green imbecilic colleagues have run the city, democracy has been ignored totally. The referendum is simply a political shenanigan to divert attention from just how totally useless these twerps are at running the city. If they want to play at national politics, they should try to get into Westminster. Brighton & Hove and it's hard pressed council tax payers have no place in this nonsense and the greens should clear off now and leave us in peace. Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and after their Brighton experiment, the greens will be completely shot as a political group. wexler53
  • Score: 15

6:53pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Richada says...

wexler53 wrote:
"The letter, whose signatories include Labour’s Baroness Ruth Lister, Chair of Compass Neil Lawson and John Hilary, the executive director of War on Want, described the referendum as a “bold commitment to democracy and equality”.

Since Kit Kat and his green imbecilic colleagues have run the city, democracy has been ignored totally.

The referendum is simply a political shenanigan to divert attention from just how totally useless these twerps are at running the city.

If they want to play at national politics, they should try to get into Westminster. Brighton & Hove and it's hard pressed council tax payers have no place in this nonsense and the greens should clear off now and leave us in peace.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and after their Brighton experiment, the greens will be completely shot as a political group.
Glad to see someone else considering this an "experiment" - an experiment that has virtually brought our city to its knees and set their own cause back at least a decade.......

.......never mind, I'm voting Green next time - they are backing the running of the Speed Trials, I'm sure that has put a smile on many a true ecologists face!
[quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: "The letter, whose signatories include Labour’s Baroness Ruth Lister, Chair of Compass Neil Lawson and John Hilary, the executive director of War on Want, described the referendum as a “bold commitment to democracy and equality”. Since Kit Kat and his green imbecilic colleagues have run the city, democracy has been ignored totally. The referendum is simply a political shenanigan to divert attention from just how totally useless these twerps are at running the city. If they want to play at national politics, they should try to get into Westminster. Brighton & Hove and it's hard pressed council tax payers have no place in this nonsense and the greens should clear off now and leave us in peace. Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and after their Brighton experiment, the greens will be completely shot as a political group.[/p][/quote]Glad to see someone else considering this an "experiment" - an experiment that has virtually brought our city to its knees and set their own cause back at least a decade....... .......never mind, I'm voting Green next time - they are backing the running of the Speed Trials, I'm sure that has put a smile on many a true ecologists face! Richada
  • Score: 1

9:12pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Just asking! says...

So Jason Kitcat is now calling it a 'social care referendum'. I presume by this that if the referendum does not go ahead, or is lost if it does, then adult social care is the lowest priority on the administrations list and will be cut first. Also, If the votes goes ahead, the £230K cost will also come off adult social care. Can someone from the administration please confirm what cuts will be made to pay for the referendum, because win or lose there will be £230K less to spend.
So Jason Kitcat is now calling it a 'social care referendum'. I presume by this that if the referendum does not go ahead, or is lost if it does, then adult social care is the lowest priority on the administrations list and will be cut first. Also, If the votes goes ahead, the £230K cost will also come off adult social care. Can someone from the administration please confirm what cuts will be made to pay for the referendum, because win or lose there will be £230K less to spend. Just asking!
  • Score: 6

10:50pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Vigilia says...

Just asking! wrote:
So Jason Kitcat is now calling it a 'social care referendum'. I presume by this that if the referendum does not go ahead, or is lost if it does, then adult social care is the lowest priority on the administrations list and will be cut first. Also, If the votes goes ahead, the £230K cost will also come off adult social care. Can someone from the administration please confirm what cuts will be made to pay for the referendum, because win or lose there will be £230K less to spend.
I can guarantee it won't come from the Green's profligate "Travellers' budget."
Just short of three quarters of a million pounds was budgeted for their accommodation and toleration within the City in 2013-2014 and that is likely to overrun by some £300,000.
"Social care" should be directed at those permanent residents in need in our City, not those passing through who have boarded up homes in the Republic of Ireland or vacant social housing plots elsewhere in the UK whilst they indulge themselves in this farcical concept of nomadism.
[quote][p][bold]Just asking![/bold] wrote: So Jason Kitcat is now calling it a 'social care referendum'. I presume by this that if the referendum does not go ahead, or is lost if it does, then adult social care is the lowest priority on the administrations list and will be cut first. Also, If the votes goes ahead, the £230K cost will also come off adult social care. Can someone from the administration please confirm what cuts will be made to pay for the referendum, because win or lose there will be £230K less to spend.[/p][/quote]I can guarantee it won't come from the Green's profligate "Travellers' budget." Just short of three quarters of a million pounds was budgeted for their accommodation and toleration within the City in 2013-2014 and that is likely to overrun by some £300,000. "Social care" should be directed at those permanent residents in need in our City, not those passing through who have boarded up homes in the Republic of Ireland or vacant social housing plots elsewhere in the UK whilst they indulge themselves in this farcical concept of nomadism. Vigilia
  • Score: 1

8:01am Sat 25 Jan 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

Vigilia wrote:
"Travellers are eligible to pay council tax the same as you or I. One of the advantages of the proposed official camp site at Horsdean is that it will be easier to collect rent and council tax."
That was the argument for the transit site that we taxpayers subsidise to the tune of £700 per day. Travellers of every description cost us £2,000 a day that could be better employed caring for the "vulnerable." The Green administration has spent more on travellers in the past two years than the previous Conservative administration in its four years term.
HJ probably won't like me posting this - especially as its the truth and not part of the normal spin machine, however...

I took a trip out and then back again yesterday, using Lewes road and made the following observations.

1). Yet another traveler has used the park, parking area and completely trashed it. I presume that the council have at the very least the vehicle registration details and could trace the offender and prosecute were there a desire to do so.

2). I saw a total of 6 bikes - 2 on the way out of town and 4 on the way back

3). The outbound journey at 7:20 was OK and cars were moving at a sensible pace and took maybe 5 mins from the gyratory to the Amex

4). The inbound journey was ridiculous and the only thing that has changed in terms of volume of traffic using the road relates to the use of rat runs. Regular users have found ways to leave the road on the 2 or 3 junctions around and after the Keep, before rejoining much further down. The conclusion is absolute chaos. The journey took 45 mins from the Amex to the gyratory. As I had work calls to make I stayed in the main lane although next time when in a hurry will join the others using the rat runs

5). HJ we Greens have got this so wrong and are actually endangering residents, no wonder there are so few people using their bikes..
[quote][p][bold]Vigilia[/bold] wrote: "Travellers are eligible to pay council tax the same as you or I. One of the advantages of the proposed official camp site at Horsdean is that it will be easier to collect rent and council tax." That was the argument for the transit site that we taxpayers subsidise to the tune of £700 per day. Travellers of every description cost us £2,000 a day that could be better employed caring for the "vulnerable." The Green administration has spent more on travellers in the past two years than the previous Conservative administration in its four years term.[/p][/quote]HJ probably won't like me posting this - especially as its the truth and not part of the normal spin machine, however... I took a trip out and then back again yesterday, using Lewes road and made the following observations. 1). Yet another traveler has used the park, parking area and completely trashed it. I presume that the council have at the very least the vehicle registration details and could trace the offender and prosecute were there a desire to do so. 2). I saw a total of 6 bikes - 2 on the way out of town and 4 on the way back 3). The outbound journey at 7:20 was OK and cars were moving at a sensible pace and took maybe 5 mins from the gyratory to the Amex 4). The inbound journey was ridiculous and the only thing that has changed in terms of volume of traffic using the road relates to the use of rat runs. Regular users have found ways to leave the road on the 2 or 3 junctions around and after the Keep, before rejoining much further down. The conclusion is absolute chaos. The journey took 45 mins from the Amex to the gyratory. As I had work calls to make I stayed in the main lane although next time when in a hurry will join the others using the rat runs 5). HJ we Greens have got this so wrong and are actually endangering residents, no wonder there are so few people using their bikes.. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 1

9:41am Sat 25 Jan 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Eugenius, sadly you can no longer be trusted as a party to carry out fair and accurate consultations and report back the data accurately.
You issued a press released entitled Overwhelming Support for Lewes Road Scheme.
That was untrue. It was 50/50 yet 20 per cent of those who responded to the consultation were not local, so I suspect the consultation was circulated to the wider cycling lobby as one could respond without giving a name or address. That's not proper consultation.
When asked for this data the council could not supply it as the consultation was not carried out to the standard private business would expect.There was no independent audit or governance around the consultation. When the scheme rolled out, all the problems which had been anticipated by locals and your own officers appeared yet you still refused to accept them and continue to re visit the scheme despite being told the problems up front.
The press release was withdrawn after public complaints. It no longer sits on the council news release archive.
Then the council installed traffic flow monitors during the October half term when we know fewer people travel as they are at home looking after kids and taking a holiday yet another release was issued saying the scheme had reduced traffic. Do you really think the public are thick?
Eugenius, if you are Geoffrey Bowden, the green councillor who runs a PR company, you should know that PR must be based on sound data which will withstand scrutiny otherwise trust and confidence is lost.
Your party has engineered its own downfall.
Eugenius, sadly you can no longer be trusted as a party to carry out fair and accurate consultations and report back the data accurately. You issued a press released entitled Overwhelming Support for Lewes Road Scheme. That was untrue. It was 50/50 yet 20 per cent of those who responded to the consultation were not local, so I suspect the consultation was circulated to the wider cycling lobby as one could respond without giving a name or address. That's not proper consultation. When asked for this data the council could not supply it as the consultation was not carried out to the standard private business would expect.There was no independent audit or governance around the consultation. When the scheme rolled out, all the problems which had been anticipated by locals and your own officers appeared yet you still refused to accept them and continue to re visit the scheme despite being told the problems up front. The press release was withdrawn after public complaints. It no longer sits on the council news release archive. Then the council installed traffic flow monitors during the October half term when we know fewer people travel as they are at home looking after kids and taking a holiday yet another release was issued saying the scheme had reduced traffic. Do you really think the public are thick? Eugenius, if you are Geoffrey Bowden, the green councillor who runs a PR company, you should know that PR must be based on sound data which will withstand scrutiny otherwise trust and confidence is lost. Your party has engineered its own downfall. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 5

9:53am Sat 25 Jan 14

Richada says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
Vigilia wrote:
"Travellers are eligible to pay council tax the same as you or I. One of the advantages of the proposed official camp site at Horsdean is that it will be easier to collect rent and council tax."
That was the argument for the transit site that we taxpayers subsidise to the tune of £700 per day. Travellers of every description cost us £2,000 a day that could be better employed caring for the "vulnerable." The Green administration has spent more on travellers in the past two years than the previous Conservative administration in its four years term.
HJ probably won't like me posting this - especially as its the truth and not part of the normal spin machine, however...

I took a trip out and then back again yesterday, using Lewes road and made the following observations.

1). Yet another traveler has used the park, parking area and completely trashed it. I presume that the council have at the very least the vehicle registration details and could trace the offender and prosecute were there a desire to do so.

2). I saw a total of 6 bikes - 2 on the way out of town and 4 on the way back

3). The outbound journey at 7:20 was OK and cars were moving at a sensible pace and took maybe 5 mins from the gyratory to the Amex

4). The inbound journey was ridiculous and the only thing that has changed in terms of volume of traffic using the road relates to the use of rat runs. Regular users have found ways to leave the road on the 2 or 3 junctions around and after the Keep, before rejoining much further down. The conclusion is absolute chaos. The journey took 45 mins from the Amex to the gyratory. As I had work calls to make I stayed in the main lane although next time when in a hurry will join the others using the rat runs

5). HJ we Greens have got this so wrong and are actually endangering residents, no wonder there are so few people using their bikes..
I'm afraid B&Q lost my custom one evening recently - it took me 30 minutes from the AMEX to the Wild Park, where I simply gave up, turned around and shot out to Homebase in Hove.

I was less than a mile from B&Q, not moving, less than 15 minutes later I had arrived at Homebase on Old Shoreham Road..

My point is, that had i got to B&Q, my round trip - there and home would have been approx. 4 miles, the journey out to Homebase and back - acceptably free flowing as it proved to be, was in the region of 10 miles.

How "Green" can that possibly be?

(Incidentally the above journey took place at 6.00pm on a Tuesday)

Whatever budget these devastating road schemes are coming from, the results are choking this city, not only in terms of traffic congestion - but in terms of pollution too.

We live here and have no choice but to come back, visitors do have a choice, like it or not, many come here by car - these people will not be returning for a very long time, which is going to be the final nail in the coffin for traders here as it will choke off the economy of the city too.

The Green experiment has failed.
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Vigilia[/bold] wrote: "Travellers are eligible to pay council tax the same as you or I. One of the advantages of the proposed official camp site at Horsdean is that it will be easier to collect rent and council tax." That was the argument for the transit site that we taxpayers subsidise to the tune of £700 per day. Travellers of every description cost us £2,000 a day that could be better employed caring for the "vulnerable." The Green administration has spent more on travellers in the past two years than the previous Conservative administration in its four years term.[/p][/quote]HJ probably won't like me posting this - especially as its the truth and not part of the normal spin machine, however... I took a trip out and then back again yesterday, using Lewes road and made the following observations. 1). Yet another traveler has used the park, parking area and completely trashed it. I presume that the council have at the very least the vehicle registration details and could trace the offender and prosecute were there a desire to do so. 2). I saw a total of 6 bikes - 2 on the way out of town and 4 on the way back 3). The outbound journey at 7:20 was OK and cars were moving at a sensible pace and took maybe 5 mins from the gyratory to the Amex 4). The inbound journey was ridiculous and the only thing that has changed in terms of volume of traffic using the road relates to the use of rat runs. Regular users have found ways to leave the road on the 2 or 3 junctions around and after the Keep, before rejoining much further down. The conclusion is absolute chaos. The journey took 45 mins from the Amex to the gyratory. As I had work calls to make I stayed in the main lane although next time when in a hurry will join the others using the rat runs 5). HJ we Greens have got this so wrong and are actually endangering residents, no wonder there are so few people using their bikes..[/p][/quote]I'm afraid B&Q lost my custom one evening recently - it took me 30 minutes from the AMEX to the Wild Park, where I simply gave up, turned around and shot out to Homebase in Hove. I was less than a mile from B&Q, not moving, less than 15 minutes later I had arrived at Homebase on Old Shoreham Road.. My point is, that had i got to B&Q, my round trip - there and home would have been approx. 4 miles, the journey out to Homebase and back - acceptably free flowing as it proved to be, was in the region of 10 miles. How "Green" can that possibly be? (Incidentally the above journey took place at 6.00pm on a Tuesday) Whatever budget these devastating road schemes are coming from, the results are choking this city, not only in terms of traffic congestion - but in terms of pollution too. We live here and have no choice but to come back, visitors do have a choice, like it or not, many come here by car - these people will not be returning for a very long time, which is going to be the final nail in the coffin for traders here as it will choke off the economy of the city too. The Green experiment has failed. Richada
  • Score: 3

1:23pm Sat 25 Jan 14

TonE60 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Eugenius, sadly you can no longer be trusted as a party to carry out fair and accurate consultations and report back the data accurately.
You issued a press released entitled Overwhelming Support for Lewes Road Scheme.
That was untrue. It was 50/50 yet 20 per cent of those who responded to the consultation were not local, so I suspect the consultation was circulated to the wider cycling lobby as one could respond without giving a name or address. That's not proper consultation.
When asked for this data the council could not supply it as the consultation was not carried out to the standard private business would expect.There was no independent audit or governance around the consultation. When the scheme rolled out, all the problems which had been anticipated by locals and your own officers appeared yet you still refused to accept them and continue to re visit the scheme despite being told the problems up front.
The press release was withdrawn after public complaints. It no longer sits on the council news release archive.
Then the council installed traffic flow monitors during the October half term when we know fewer people travel as they are at home looking after kids and taking a holiday yet another release was issued saying the scheme had reduced traffic. Do you really think the public are thick?
Eugenius, if you are Geoffrey Bowden, the green councillor who runs a PR company, you should know that PR must be based on sound data which will withstand scrutiny otherwise trust and confidence is lost.
Your party has engineered its own downfall.
I live on the Lewes Road, and I can honestly say that I never received any kind of communication asking for my view on the stupid road scheme!
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Eugenius, sadly you can no longer be trusted as a party to carry out fair and accurate consultations and report back the data accurately. You issued a press released entitled Overwhelming Support for Lewes Road Scheme. That was untrue. It was 50/50 yet 20 per cent of those who responded to the consultation were not local, so I suspect the consultation was circulated to the wider cycling lobby as one could respond without giving a name or address. That's not proper consultation. When asked for this data the council could not supply it as the consultation was not carried out to the standard private business would expect.There was no independent audit or governance around the consultation. When the scheme rolled out, all the problems which had been anticipated by locals and your own officers appeared yet you still refused to accept them and continue to re visit the scheme despite being told the problems up front. The press release was withdrawn after public complaints. It no longer sits on the council news release archive. Then the council installed traffic flow monitors during the October half term when we know fewer people travel as they are at home looking after kids and taking a holiday yet another release was issued saying the scheme had reduced traffic. Do you really think the public are thick? Eugenius, if you are Geoffrey Bowden, the green councillor who runs a PR company, you should know that PR must be based on sound data which will withstand scrutiny otherwise trust and confidence is lost. Your party has engineered its own downfall.[/p][/quote]I live on the Lewes Road, and I can honestly say that I never received any kind of communication asking for my view on the stupid road scheme! TonE60
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree