The Argus Council Tax Debate this week

The Argus Council Tax Debate this week

The Argus Council Tax Debate this week

First published in News

The countdown is on to The Argus Council Tax Debate and we want to hear your thoughts.

Our event will be held at Hove Town Hall from 7pm on Thursday, when the city’s political leaders will answer the questions on this year’s contentious budget process.

Council leader Jason Kitcat, Conservative leader Geoffrey Theobald and Labour leader Warren Morgan have all confirmed they will be attending and it is set to be a fiercely contested debate if Thursday’s lively council meeting was anything to go by.

The Argus has received more than 4,000 votes to our online poll and more than 150 postal entries on how readers would vote in the unlikely event the Green administration’s proposed 4.75% council tax should receive political support and spark a referendum.

Reader questions are also being emailed to The Argus.

Things are really starting to heat up in the budget process and much could change come the Budget Policy and Resources Committee meeting on Thursday, February 13.

The final budget will be discussed and hammered out two weeks later at a full council meeting.

To send your questions for The Argus debate email neil.vowles@theargus.co.uk or post them to Neil Vowles, Argus House, Crowhurst Road, Brighton BN1 8AR.

Please include your name, address, which leader your question is addressed to, or if it is addressed to all three.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:53pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Reporter1 says...

Don't vote. Make the Greens make the decisions they were elected to do. Stop passing the buck.
Don't vote. Make the Greens make the decisions they were elected to do. Stop passing the buck. Reporter1
  • Score: -15

8:05pm Mon 3 Feb 14

worthingite says...

Not many replies from a city of 500k by the looks of things
Not many replies from a city of 500k by the looks of things worthingite
  • Score: -8

8:55pm Mon 3 Feb 14

monkeymoo says...

Increase by 20%, so i can give myself and my banker mates some extra cash. Then also commit to cutting 50% of all public services!

There's my vote...Can i be a Tory MP now!?
Increase by 20%, so i can give myself and my banker mates some extra cash. Then also commit to cutting 50% of all public services! There's my vote...Can i be a Tory MP now!? monkeymoo
  • Score: -9

9:53pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Golfer69 says...

God you have just doubled the population, of a Brighton and Hove your either very clever with your sperms or a Walter Mitty character !!!
God you have just doubled the population, of a Brighton and Hove your either very clever with your sperms or a Walter Mitty character !!! Golfer69
  • Score: 9

1:48am Tue 4 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

I don't know about "fiercely contested"!

As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how.

At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".
I don't know about "fiercely contested"! As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how. At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable". Eugenius
  • Score: -6

6:48am Tue 4 Feb 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Golfer69 wrote:
God you have just doubled the population, of a Brighton and Hove your either very clever with your sperms or a Walter Mitty character !!!
Worth remembering that most of the green supporters are Londoners and then add the homeless and students who flock to Brighton.
[quote][p][bold]Golfer69[/bold] wrote: God you have just doubled the population, of a Brighton and Hove your either very clever with your sperms or a Walter Mitty character !!![/p][/quote]Worth remembering that most of the green supporters are Londoners and then add the homeless and students who flock to Brighton. Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 1

7:05am Tue 4 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Eugenius wrote:
I don't know about "fiercely contested"!

As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how.

At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".
Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: I don't know about "fiercely contested"! As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how. At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".[/p][/quote]Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket. HJarrs
  • Score: -5

7:30am Tue 4 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

HJarrs wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
I don't know about "fiercely contested"!

As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how.

At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".
Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.
Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets.

That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS?

Who should be trust?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: I don't know about "fiercely contested"! As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how. At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".[/p][/quote]Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.[/p][/quote]Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets. That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS? Who should be trust? Thay Qon U
  • Score: 5

8:01am Tue 4 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Thay Qon U wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
I don't know about "fiercely contested"!

As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how.

At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".
Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.
Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets.

That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS?

Who should be trust?
You seem a bit confused, but I think you make the point of holding a council tax referendum eloquently.

Social care funding is not ring fenced and across the country we are seeing cuts that are only going to deepen. However, the Greens proposal to raise council tax slightly will fend off the worst of the social service cuts in Brighton and Hove. It is sad that only the Greens are standing up against the loss of services to the most vulnerable. I really wish for those that need support and who are to lose this, that all parties in the city would join together to push back against government cuts to social services. Sadly, the other parties are only too happy to put political ambition first.
[quote][p][bold]Thay Qon U[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: I don't know about "fiercely contested"! As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how. At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".[/p][/quote]Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.[/p][/quote]Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets. That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS? Who should be trust?[/p][/quote]You seem a bit confused, but I think you make the point of holding a council tax referendum eloquently. Social care funding is not ring fenced and across the country we are seeing cuts that are only going to deepen. However, the Greens proposal to raise council tax slightly will fend off the worst of the social service cuts in Brighton and Hove. It is sad that only the Greens are standing up against the loss of services to the most vulnerable. I really wish for those that need support and who are to lose this, that all parties in the city would join together to push back against government cuts to social services. Sadly, the other parties are only too happy to put political ambition first. HJarrs
  • Score: -7

8:27am Tue 4 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Thay Qon U wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
I don't know about "fiercely contested"!

As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how.

At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".
Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.
Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets.

That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS?

Who should be trust?
You'll be able to see how the revenue raised by the additional 2.75% (above the 2% that was already in the draft budget) will be spent, line by line, when the detailed revised budget is published. That's this Friday I believe. Where it is spent is a political decision for budget council later this month, so it is possible that Tories and Labour could do a deal and amend the budget to allocate the spend differently.
[quote][p][bold]Thay Qon U[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: I don't know about "fiercely contested"! As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how. At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".[/p][/quote]Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.[/p][/quote]Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets. That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS? Who should be trust?[/p][/quote]You'll be able to see how the revenue raised by the additional 2.75% (above the 2% that was already in the draft budget) will be spent, line by line, when the detailed revised budget is published. That's this Friday I believe. Where it is spent is a political decision for budget council later this month, so it is possible that Tories and Labour could do a deal and amend the budget to allocate the spend differently. Eugenius
  • Score: 1

8:35am Tue 4 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

HJarrs wrote:
Thay Qon U wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
I don't know about "fiercely contested"!

As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how.

At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".
Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.
Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets.

That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS?

Who should be trust?
You seem a bit confused, but I think you make the point of holding a council tax referendum eloquently.

Social care funding is not ring fenced and across the country we are seeing cuts that are only going to deepen. However, the Greens proposal to raise council tax slightly will fend off the worst of the social service cuts in Brighton and Hove. It is sad that only the Greens are standing up against the loss of services to the most vulnerable. I really wish for those that need support and who are to lose this, that all parties in the city would join together to push back against government cuts to social services. Sadly, the other parties are only too happy to put political ambition first.
My confusion about the "ring-fencing" relates back to an early comment (about the time of the original announcement) from a 'Green' supporter who was seeking to conflate the proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase with the protection of funding for vulnerable residents by plans to ring-fence the planned additional income.

Okay, so for the sake of enlightening us with your inside knowledge on this subject:-

Suppose that a 4.75% Council Tax increase is agreed, how much additional (year-on-year) funding will this generate in ££s for 2014-15 Finacial Year?

How much of that extra funding will be used (specifically) for vulnerable Social Services clients in 2014-15?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thay Qon U[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: I don't know about "fiercely contested"! As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how. At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".[/p][/quote]Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.[/p][/quote]Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets. That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS? Who should be trust?[/p][/quote]You seem a bit confused, but I think you make the point of holding a council tax referendum eloquently. Social care funding is not ring fenced and across the country we are seeing cuts that are only going to deepen. However, the Greens proposal to raise council tax slightly will fend off the worst of the social service cuts in Brighton and Hove. It is sad that only the Greens are standing up against the loss of services to the most vulnerable. I really wish for those that need support and who are to lose this, that all parties in the city would join together to push back against government cuts to social services. Sadly, the other parties are only too happy to put political ambition first.[/p][/quote]My confusion about the "ring-fencing" relates back to an early comment (about the time of the original announcement) from a 'Green' supporter who was seeking to conflate the proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase with the protection of funding for vulnerable residents by plans to ring-fence the planned additional income. Okay, so for the sake of enlightening us with your inside knowledge on this subject:- Suppose that a 4.75% Council Tax increase is agreed, how much additional (year-on-year) funding will this generate in ££s for 2014-15 Finacial Year? How much of that extra funding will be used (specifically) for vulnerable Social Services clients in 2014-15? Thay Qon U
  • Score: 3

8:51am Tue 4 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

HJarrs wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
I don't know about "fiercely contested"!

As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how.

At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".
Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.
Oh for f*** sake we know you're the same person posting under these 2 names. Please don't make us watch this farce of seeing you post under two names and then agreeing with yourself!

If this is the level that the Green Party has now sunk to then this really is sad.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: I don't know about "fiercely contested"! As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how. At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".[/p][/quote]Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.[/p][/quote]Oh for f*** sake we know you're the same person posting under these 2 names. Please don't make us watch this farce of seeing you post under two names and then agreeing with yourself! If this is the level that the Green Party has now sunk to then this really is sad. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 3

10:00am Tue 4 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Thay Qon U wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Thay Qon U wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
I don't know about "fiercely contested"!

As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how.

At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".
Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.
Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets.

That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS?

Who should be trust?
You seem a bit confused, but I think you make the point of holding a council tax referendum eloquently.

Social care funding is not ring fenced and across the country we are seeing cuts that are only going to deepen. However, the Greens proposal to raise council tax slightly will fend off the worst of the social service cuts in Brighton and Hove. It is sad that only the Greens are standing up against the loss of services to the most vulnerable. I really wish for those that need support and who are to lose this, that all parties in the city would join together to push back against government cuts to social services. Sadly, the other parties are only too happy to put political ambition first.
My confusion about the "ring-fencing" relates back to an early comment (about the time of the original announcement) from a 'Green' supporter who was seeking to conflate the proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase with the protection of funding for vulnerable residents by plans to ring-fence the planned additional income.

Okay, so for the sake of enlightening us with your inside knowledge on this subject:-

Suppose that a 4.75% Council Tax increase is agreed, how much additional (year-on-year) funding will this generate in ££s for 2014-15 Finacial Year?

How much of that extra funding will be used (specifically) for vulnerable Social Services clients in 2014-15?
As a rule of thumb, each 1% increase in council tax raises £1m. Bear in mind that the budget gap for this year is £23m, thanks to the council's funding being cut by central government year on year, so 4.75% on council tax alone isn't enough to maintain services at last year's levels. The draft budget published at the end of November based on a 2% increase had efficiency savings across the board.

Feedback from the budget consultation was that people wanted social care to be protected from the cuts so that's where 90% of the money raised by the extra 2.75% will go, we're also proposing to protect the Community Grants budget and the subsidy to the Able & Willing supported employment service.
[quote][p][bold]Thay Qon U[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thay Qon U[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: I don't know about "fiercely contested"! As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how. At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".[/p][/quote]Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.[/p][/quote]Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets. That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS? Who should be trust?[/p][/quote]You seem a bit confused, but I think you make the point of holding a council tax referendum eloquently. Social care funding is not ring fenced and across the country we are seeing cuts that are only going to deepen. However, the Greens proposal to raise council tax slightly will fend off the worst of the social service cuts in Brighton and Hove. It is sad that only the Greens are standing up against the loss of services to the most vulnerable. I really wish for those that need support and who are to lose this, that all parties in the city would join together to push back against government cuts to social services. Sadly, the other parties are only too happy to put political ambition first.[/p][/quote]My confusion about the "ring-fencing" relates back to an early comment (about the time of the original announcement) from a 'Green' supporter who was seeking to conflate the proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase with the protection of funding for vulnerable residents by plans to ring-fence the planned additional income. Okay, so for the sake of enlightening us with your inside knowledge on this subject:- Suppose that a 4.75% Council Tax increase is agreed, how much additional (year-on-year) funding will this generate in ££s for 2014-15 Finacial Year? How much of that extra funding will be used (specifically) for vulnerable Social Services clients in 2014-15?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb, each 1% increase in council tax raises £1m. Bear in mind that the budget gap for this year is £23m, thanks to the council's funding being cut by central government year on year, so 4.75% on council tax alone isn't enough to maintain services at last year's levels. The draft budget published at the end of November based on a 2% increase had efficiency savings across the board. Feedback from the budget consultation was that people wanted social care to be protected from the cuts so that's where 90% of the money raised by the extra 2.75% will go, we're also proposing to protect the Community Grants budget and the subsidy to the Able & Willing supported employment service. Eugenius
  • Score: -3

12:15pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

Eugenius wrote:
Thay Qon U wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Thay Qon U wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
I don't know about "fiercely contested"!

As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how.

At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".
Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.
Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets.

That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS?

Who should be trust?
You seem a bit confused, but I think you make the point of holding a council tax referendum eloquently.

Social care funding is not ring fenced and across the country we are seeing cuts that are only going to deepen. However, the Greens proposal to raise council tax slightly will fend off the worst of the social service cuts in Brighton and Hove. It is sad that only the Greens are standing up against the loss of services to the most vulnerable. I really wish for those that need support and who are to lose this, that all parties in the city would join together to push back against government cuts to social services. Sadly, the other parties are only too happy to put political ambition first.
My confusion about the "ring-fencing" relates back to an early comment (about the time of the original announcement) from a 'Green' supporter who was seeking to conflate the proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase with the protection of funding for vulnerable residents by plans to ring-fence the planned additional income.

Okay, so for the sake of enlightening us with your inside knowledge on this subject:-

Suppose that a 4.75% Council Tax increase is agreed, how much additional (year-on-year) funding will this generate in ££s for 2014-15 Finacial Year?

How much of that extra funding will be used (specifically) for vulnerable Social Services clients in 2014-15?
As a rule of thumb, each 1% increase in council tax raises £1m. Bear in mind that the budget gap for this year is £23m, thanks to the council's funding being cut by central government year on year, so 4.75% on council tax alone isn't enough to maintain services at last year's levels. The draft budget published at the end of November based on a 2% increase had efficiency savings across the board.

Feedback from the budget consultation was that people wanted social care to be protected from the cuts so that's where 90% of the money raised by the extra 2.75% will go, we're also proposing to protect the Community Grants budget and the subsidy to the Able & Willing supported employment service.
So using your logic of 'steady as we go' we will face another 4.75% increase in Council Tax in 2015-16 also,all other things being equal, if we want to mainatain services and protect 'Social Care'.

Will that be clearly stated in the Green Party's manifesto for the May 2015 elections?

What level of cashable savings are you expecting to be delivered in 2014-15 from the "across the board" Efficiency Savings?

Bearing in mind that most service budgets in Local Councils are typically 60% compiled of 'staff costs' what level of headcount reduction do those Efficiency Savings plan to deliver? Will they be from natural wastage or redundancies?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thay Qon U[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thay Qon U[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: I don't know about "fiercely contested"! As Thursday's Full Council proved, Labour don't actually have any policy, they are just trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes by vacuously claiming they will somehow offer the same level of service for less money but can't say how. At least the Tories admit the Green referendum proposal is "honourable".[/p][/quote]Yes Eugenius, that is a big worry. It is easy to oppose, we all know that, but to attempt to remove the current administration with no plan and absolutely no idea is irresponsible. Warren Morgan has had lots of soft press locally his responses in that and his blog demonstrate he is short on commitments and policies and is hoping to win on a "not Tory, not Green" ticket.[/p][/quote]Hmm is this another torpedo I see heading towards 'HMS BHCC Green Party Council Tax Increase Referendum' ,,,,,,just listening to a BBC TV News discussion this morning about Social Care funding & the spokesperson on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has just clearly stated that "Social Care funding cannot be ring-fenced" in Local Authority budgets. That suggests that the underlying policy for the Green Party's proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase to be ring-fenced for vulnerable residents is at odds with that authoritative comment from the ADSS? Who should be trust?[/p][/quote]You seem a bit confused, but I think you make the point of holding a council tax referendum eloquently. Social care funding is not ring fenced and across the country we are seeing cuts that are only going to deepen. However, the Greens proposal to raise council tax slightly will fend off the worst of the social service cuts in Brighton and Hove. It is sad that only the Greens are standing up against the loss of services to the most vulnerable. I really wish for those that need support and who are to lose this, that all parties in the city would join together to push back against government cuts to social services. Sadly, the other parties are only too happy to put political ambition first.[/p][/quote]My confusion about the "ring-fencing" relates back to an early comment (about the time of the original announcement) from a 'Green' supporter who was seeking to conflate the proposed 4.75% Council Tax increase with the protection of funding for vulnerable residents by plans to ring-fence the planned additional income. Okay, so for the sake of enlightening us with your inside knowledge on this subject:- Suppose that a 4.75% Council Tax increase is agreed, how much additional (year-on-year) funding will this generate in ££s for 2014-15 Finacial Year? How much of that extra funding will be used (specifically) for vulnerable Social Services clients in 2014-15?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb, each 1% increase in council tax raises £1m. Bear in mind that the budget gap for this year is £23m, thanks to the council's funding being cut by central government year on year, so 4.75% on council tax alone isn't enough to maintain services at last year's levels. The draft budget published at the end of November based on a 2% increase had efficiency savings across the board. Feedback from the budget consultation was that people wanted social care to be protected from the cuts so that's where 90% of the money raised by the extra 2.75% will go, we're also proposing to protect the Community Grants budget and the subsidy to the Able & Willing supported employment service.[/p][/quote]So using your logic of 'steady as we go' we will face another 4.75% increase in Council Tax in 2015-16 also,all other things being equal, if we want to mainatain services and protect 'Social Care'. Will that be clearly stated in the Green Party's manifesto for the May 2015 elections? What level of cashable savings are you expecting to be delivered in 2014-15 from the "across the board" Efficiency Savings? Bearing in mind that most service budgets in Local Councils are typically 60% compiled of 'staff costs' what level of headcount reduction do those Efficiency Savings plan to deliver? Will they be from natural wastage or redundancies? Thay Qon U
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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