The ArgusCouncil tax rise could still go ahead with Labour support say Greens (From The Argus)

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

Brighton and Hove council tax rise could still go ahead with Labour support say Greens

The Argus: Council tax rise could still go ahead with Labour support say Greens Council tax rise could still go ahead with Labour support say Greens

Green councillors have said that a 4.75% council tax rise could still go ahead if they were supported by Labour.

The Green Party’s appeal for its political opponents to support the rise came as Brighton and Hove City Council’s policy and resources committee rejected the proposed rise yesterday.

Conservative amendments for a council tax freeze and Labour amendments for a council tax rise of 2% were also both voted down.

In another heated budget discussion, Conservative and Labour councillors both pointed to The Argus poll in which more than four out of five voters said theywould vote against the tax rise, saying it was a clear indicator that it was a referendum the Greens could not win.

But council leader Jason Kitcat said it was absurd to be quoting the response of The Argus poll when it only covered a small percentage of the city’s population and said it was the “height of arrogance” to presume to know what would happen in a referendum in two months’ time.

He and finance member Leo Littman both warned of the “financial cliff” the council faced in the upcoming years with a projected budget gap of £90 million over the next five years.

Related links

‘Savage’ Coun Littman said: “We have considered next year and into the future when the cuts are scheduled to be especially savage and a small increase now will help next year and into the future.”

Green councillor Sue Shanks said she was shocked and surprised that Labour had not decided to support her party’s council tax rise.

She said: “With the Government’s austerity measures, there is no other way.

“With Labour’s support with us for a 4.75% rise we could win the popular vote.”

The much-predicted stalemate means the discussion will nowmove on to the full council budget debate on February 27.

At that meeting the Green administration will call on councillors to vote on their 4.75% council tax rise as an amendment.

Conservative leader Councillor Geoffrey Theobald said he repeated what he had said “week after week and meeting after meeting” that he could not see “any need” for a council tax increase.

His Labour counterpart, Coun Warren Morgan, said that residents in the city “could not afford this rise at this time”.

Following the meeting he said he was “delighted that the budget will now go to council based on the Labour position of a sensible, 2% inflation-level increase, and not the unaffordable Green £5 a month rise that would have triggered a referendum”.

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:06am Fri 14 Feb 14

Richada says...

Cllr Kitcat says.......

"it was absurd to be quoting the response of The Argus poll when it only covered a small percentage of the city’s population and said it was the “height of arrogance” to presume to know what would happen in a referendum in two months’ time."

Priceless!
Cllr Kitcat says....... "it was absurd to be quoting the response of The Argus poll when it only covered a small percentage of the city’s population and said it was the “height of arrogance” to presume to know what would happen in a referendum in two months’ time." Priceless! Richada
  • Score: 40

11:17am Fri 14 Feb 14

smegbuster says...

Does "height of arrogance" include presuming that the results of a vote aren't really what people want, so bulldozing ahead with blanket 20mph restrictions anyway? Fortunately Carden Hill got a stay of execution, but, Good Lord! we now have a group based in Old London Road putting together a petition to enforce the 20mph in our road anyway! I'll be glad when we can get these Green anti-car bigots out of office.
Does "height of arrogance" include presuming that the results of a vote aren't really what people want, so bulldozing ahead with blanket 20mph restrictions anyway? Fortunately Carden Hill got a stay of execution, but, Good Lord! we now have a group based in Old London Road putting together a petition to enforce the 20mph in our road anyway! I'll be glad when we can get these Green anti-car bigots out of office. smegbuster
  • Score: 30

11:20am Fri 14 Feb 14

charlie smirke says...

The greens could try collecting the vast sums of unpaid council tax, instead of trying to extort more from those who have already paid their dues !!
The greens could try collecting the vast sums of unpaid council tax, instead of trying to extort more from those who have already paid their dues !! charlie smirke
  • Score: 34

11:29am Fri 14 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead.

And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from.

And they haven't explained if the 20mph is really enforceable - Cllr Davey has said it is and that it isn't !

So given these facts who on earth would trust them with 4.75% more money from our pockets ?
So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead. And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from. And they haven't explained if the 20mph is really enforceable - Cllr Davey has said it is and that it isn't ! So given these facts who on earth would trust them with 4.75% more money from our pockets ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 31

11:40am Fri 14 Feb 14

Richada says...

Fight_Back wrote:
So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead.

And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from.

And they haven't explained if the 20mph is really enforceable - Cllr Davey has said it is and that it isn't !

So given these facts who on earth would trust them with 4.75% more money from our pockets ?
Those who they have attracted here but pay nothing towards the upkeep of the city.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead. And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from. And they haven't explained if the 20mph is really enforceable - Cllr Davey has said it is and that it isn't ! So given these facts who on earth would trust them with 4.75% more money from our pockets ?[/p][/quote]Those who they have attracted here but pay nothing towards the upkeep of the city. Richada
  • Score: 26

11:47am Fri 14 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

This is the greens all over. The people have spoken against a 4.75% tax rise and they STILL try and go ahead with it.

Its the main reason they'll be out next year, the fact they refuse to listen to the public and go ahead with what they want to do regardless.
This is the greens all over. The people have spoken against a 4.75% tax rise and they STILL try and go ahead with it. Its the main reason they'll be out next year, the fact they refuse to listen to the public and go ahead with what they want to do regardless. J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 34

11:48am Fri 14 Feb 14

Goldenwight says...

"Green councillors have said that a 4.75% council tax rise could still go ahead if they were supported by Labour."

And if wishes were kisses we would all have a happy valentines day.

Kitcat, PLEASE resign now before your compounded errors damage B&H irretrievably.
"Green councillors have said that a 4.75% council tax rise could still go ahead if they were supported by Labour." And if wishes were kisses we would all have a happy valentines day. Kitcat, PLEASE resign now before your compounded errors damage B&H irretrievably. Goldenwight
  • Score: 31

11:57am Fri 14 Feb 14

Tailgaters Anonymous says...

Has anyone polled Labour? Sounds a little like the ramblings of a key politician 550 miles to the North!
Has anyone polled Labour? Sounds a little like the ramblings of a key politician 550 miles to the North! Tailgaters Anonymous
  • Score: 6

12:00pm Fri 14 Feb 14

charlie smirke says...

Fight_Back wrote:
So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead.

And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from.

And they haven't explained if the 20mph is really enforceable - Cllr Davey has said it is and that it isn't !

So given these facts who on earth would trust them with 4.75% more money from our pockets ?
All so very true !! well said !!!
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead. And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from. And they haven't explained if the 20mph is really enforceable - Cllr Davey has said it is and that it isn't ! So given these facts who on earth would trust them with 4.75% more money from our pockets ?[/p][/quote]All so very true !! well said !!! charlie smirke
  • Score: 23

12:21pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Zamora25 says...

How about collecting the vast sums of unpaid council tax, instead of trying to extort more from those who have already paid their dues.

How about not bothering with the referendum and wasting taxpayers money is as we all know what the outcome will be. Who in their right mind is going to vote for the increase.

Even if they are defeated in the referendum they will probably just ignore the public as they have with everything else especially the 20mph speed limit which is not enforceable Mr Davey and increase it anyway.

What does Kitkat have to do to be sacked? The public sector must be the only organisation where you can be absolutely rubbish at your job and not lose it.

The last thing the Greens need is more money to fritter away on completely pointless vanity projects.
How about collecting the vast sums of unpaid council tax, instead of trying to extort more from those who have already paid their dues. How about not bothering with the referendum and wasting taxpayers money is as we all know what the outcome will be. Who in their right mind is going to vote for the increase. Even if they are defeated in the referendum they will probably just ignore the public as they have with everything else especially the 20mph speed limit which is not enforceable Mr Davey and increase it anyway. What does Kitkat have to do to be sacked? The public sector must be the only organisation where you can be absolutely rubbish at your job and not lose it. The last thing the Greens need is more money to fritter away on completely pointless vanity projects. Zamora25
  • Score: 25

1:02pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Seventh Circle says...

Wouldn't it be great if we could seperate Brighton into 2 sections and have all those who actually pay council tax in one section and those who don't in the other, with each section providing their own services and adjust the tax bills accordingly... they'd probably go down to around £500.
The traveller camp alone is going to cost around £500,000 annually in running costs and it's not going to solve anything.. even the travellers themselves don't want to use it... why would they chose to pay £50 a week or whatever it is to stay there, when they can camp in the parks for nothing... and this proposed site isn't going to stop them doing that.
Wouldn't it be great if we could seperate Brighton into 2 sections and have all those who actually pay council tax in one section and those who don't in the other, with each section providing their own services and adjust the tax bills accordingly... they'd probably go down to around £500. The traveller camp alone is going to cost around £500,000 annually in running costs and it's not going to solve anything.. even the travellers themselves don't want to use it... why would they chose to pay £50 a week or whatever it is to stay there, when they can camp in the parks for nothing... and this proposed site isn't going to stop them doing that. Seventh Circle
  • Score: 19

1:04pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

As I said at the meeting yesterday, there will be no support for Cllr Kitcat's 4.75% council tax proposal at Council on the 27th from Labour. People can't afford another £6 a month increase, the city can't afford to spend £900,000 on a vote that would reject it anyway, and there seems to be a great deal of "contingency" funding built in to the social care budget to cover around £3.5 million - more than would be raised by the increase.

I'd again ask why social care is being used by the Greens to justify their rise when they are putting £100,000 extra a year into the traveller budget, and not cutting anything from their £900,000 a year Communications budget which covers media work, tweeting and so on.

Green leaflets will say "Labour and the Tories vote for cuts" when in truth this covers up their inability to agree on a balanced budget amongst themselves, their attempts to protect their own preferred spending, their desire to paint themselves as anti-austerity champions on the national stage, and their financial mismanagement.

They are so out of touch with people for whom a £5 or £6 a month increase will break the back of their own already overstretched monthly budgets. It might be the price of a couple of expensive coffees for Green supporters, but it could be the difference between heating and eating for others.
As I said at the meeting yesterday, there will be no support for Cllr Kitcat's 4.75% council tax proposal at Council on the 27th from Labour. People can't afford another £6 a month increase, the city can't afford to spend £900,000 on a vote that would reject it anyway, and there seems to be a great deal of "contingency" funding built in to the social care budget to cover around £3.5 million - more than would be raised by the increase. I'd again ask why social care is being used by the Greens to justify their rise when they are putting £100,000 extra a year into the traveller budget, and not cutting anything from their £900,000 a year Communications budget which covers media work, tweeting and so on. Green leaflets will say "Labour and the Tories vote for cuts" when in truth this covers up their inability to agree on a balanced budget amongst themselves, their attempts to protect their own preferred spending, their desire to paint themselves as anti-austerity champions on the national stage, and their financial mismanagement. They are so out of touch with people for whom a £5 or £6 a month increase will break the back of their own already overstretched monthly budgets. It might be the price of a couple of expensive coffees for Green supporters, but it could be the difference between heating and eating for others. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 26

1:15pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

What an arrogant awful man Kitkat is. Is it really any wonder that his own party tried to oust him out not so long ago? Any Green supporter that tries to tell you that there's no longer any internal conflict is a liar as divisions that deep within a party do not just magically disappear so easily.
What an arrogant awful man Kitkat is. Is it really any wonder that his own party tried to oust him out not so long ago? Any Green supporter that tries to tell you that there's no longer any internal conflict is a liar as divisions that deep within a party do not just magically disappear so easily. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 21

1:22pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
What an arrogant awful man Kitkat is. Is it really any wonder that his own party tried to oust him out not so long ago? Any Green supporter that tries to tell you that there's no longer any internal conflict is a liar as divisions that deep within a party do not just magically disappear so easily.
Indeed - watch them re-appear the moment they are kicked out of office next year.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: What an arrogant awful man Kitkat is. Is it really any wonder that his own party tried to oust him out not so long ago? Any Green supporter that tries to tell you that there's no longer any internal conflict is a liar as divisions that deep within a party do not just magically disappear so easily.[/p][/quote]Indeed - watch them re-appear the moment they are kicked out of office next year. Fight_Back
  • Score: 13

2:32pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Richada says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
What an arrogant awful man Kitkat is. Is it really any wonder that his own party tried to oust him out not so long ago? Any Green supporter that tries to tell you that there's no longer any internal conflict is a liar as divisions that deep within a party do not just magically disappear so easily.
Come on now.......if he REALLY thinks the people of B&H are behind him in this 4.75% increase, there couldn't possibly be any conflicts within the squeaky clean Green party could there?
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: What an arrogant awful man Kitkat is. Is it really any wonder that his own party tried to oust him out not so long ago? Any Green supporter that tries to tell you that there's no longer any internal conflict is a liar as divisions that deep within a party do not just magically disappear so easily.[/p][/quote]Come on now.......if he REALLY thinks the people of B&H are behind him in this 4.75% increase, there couldn't possibly be any conflicts within the squeaky clean Green party could there? Richada
  • Score: 14

3:12pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9% Eugenius
  • Score: -18

3:29pm Fri 14 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
Stop trying to mask the Greens failings and behaviour by trying to talk about Labour!

And if you're claiming Labour increased Council tax by the percentages you've stated and that its a bad thing, then why on earth does it give you the right to preach about increasing it now?! That was 2003? It bares absolutely no relevance to the Greens behaviour now.

The public have clearly stated we DON'T want to pay more Council Tax. Why don't you listen to us and respond accordingly and not go ahead with your 'we greens know best' attitude.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]Stop trying to mask the Greens failings and behaviour by trying to talk about Labour! And if you're claiming Labour increased Council tax by the percentages you've stated and that its a bad thing, then why on earth does it give you the right to preach about increasing it now?! That was 2003? It bares absolutely no relevance to the Greens behaviour now. The public have clearly stated we DON'T want to pay more Council Tax. Why don't you listen to us and respond accordingly and not go ahead with your 'we greens know best' attitude. J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 22

3:35pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

Richada wrote:
Cllr Kitcat says.......

"it was absurd to be quoting the response of The Argus poll when it only covered a small percentage of the city’s population and said it was the “height of arrogance” to presume to know what would happen in a referendum in two months’ time."

Priceless!
Okay Jason if you want to continue with your political posturing, would you accept the 'vote' if all those that think your proposal to increase the Council Tax by 4.75% is not acceptable were to cancel their Direct Debit or Bank Standing Order en masse before the full Council meeting on the 27th February.

It would be a 'stratified sample' much larger than the 680 odd residents polled in the BHCC Council Tax survey (and then having their spending priorities ignored) back in November.

It would be an innovative, e-voting variant so would tick the boxes for the Digital City.

It would be cheaper than your proposed paper referendum.

It would be a display of localism and democracy.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: Cllr Kitcat says....... "it was absurd to be quoting the response of The Argus poll when it only covered a small percentage of the city’s population and said it was the “height of arrogance” to presume to know what would happen in a referendum in two months’ time." Priceless![/p][/quote]Okay Jason if you want to continue with your political posturing, would you accept the 'vote' if all those that think your proposal to increase the Council Tax by 4.75% is not acceptable were to cancel their Direct Debit or Bank Standing Order en masse before the full Council meeting on the 27th February. It would be a 'stratified sample' much larger than the 680 odd residents polled in the BHCC Council Tax survey (and then having their spending priorities ignored) back in November. It would be an innovative, e-voting variant so would tick the boxes for the Digital City. It would be cheaper than your proposed paper referendum. It would be a display of localism and democracy. Thay Qon U
  • Score: 10

3:54pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 12

4:10pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Richada says...

Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
THAT was over a decade ago!

Whatever any of us may or may not hold either Labour or Conservative Council's responsible for - the blind truth of it is that neither have made such a terrible LASH of running the council - that BEFORE any cuts are made!

The list of issues that you have aliented council tax payers, residents and voters over is almost endless. Constantly carping on about Labour's failures is merely adding insult to injury.......

.......or the final nail in the Green coffin.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]THAT was over a decade ago! Whatever any of us may or may not hold either Labour or Conservative Council's responsible for - the blind truth of it is that neither have made such a terrible LASH of running the council - that BEFORE any cuts are made! The list of issues that you have aliented council tax payers, residents and voters over is almost endless. Constantly carping on about Labour's failures is merely adding insult to injury....... .......or the final nail in the Green coffin. Richada
  • Score: 15

4:17pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?
Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing.

8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C.

The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?[/p][/quote]Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing. 8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C. The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension. Eugenius
  • Score: -21

4:20pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?
Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing.

8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C.

The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.
Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs !

Not that one - these :

"So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead.

And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?[/p][/quote]Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing. 8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C. The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.[/p][/quote]Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs ! Not that one - these : "So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead. And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from." Fight_Back
  • Score: 13

4:30pm Fri 14 Feb 14

wexler53 says...

Ok Kit Kat and chums - NO NO NO

What do you not understand about this word?

Most of the truly hacked off (your doing incidentally) taxpayers of Brighton & Hove do NOT want your increase of 4.75%.

Actually, we don't want you and your fellows either, but if you want to play at national politics, try to get yourself elected as an MP (good luck with that, you'd need it).

We want an efficient and accountable council running good quality and cost effective LOCAL services on our behalf - your employers and financiers incidentally, the taxpayer, in case you have forgotten?

And just for good measure, please take the i360 and place it with your head. That is, where the sun doesn't shine...
Ok Kit Kat and chums - NO NO NO What do you not understand about this word? Most of the truly hacked off (your doing incidentally) taxpayers of Brighton & Hove do NOT want your increase of 4.75%. Actually, we don't want you and your fellows either, but if you want to play at national politics, try to get yourself elected as an MP (good luck with that, you'd need it). We want an efficient and accountable council running good quality and cost effective LOCAL services on our behalf - your employers and financiers incidentally, the taxpayer, in case you have forgotten? And just for good measure, please take the i360 and place it with your head. That is, where the sun doesn't shine... wexler53
  • Score: 14

4:44pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?
Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing.

8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C.

The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.
Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs !

Not that one - these :

"So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead.

And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."
Social care - the draft budget in November had efficiency savings across the board, including social care, because officers were asked to make targeted savings. Adult social care is the largest budget in the general fund, £112m last year, and rising due to an ageing local population. Meanwhile central government is withdrawing about £13m per year every year from our grant to pay for the bank bailout and nudge councils towards privatisation. You can't completely ignore rising social care costs, it's a time bomb. During the two month consultation period (a Green innovation I might add) it was the service reductions in social care and the subsidy for Able & Willing which received the strongest objections hence the referendum council tax rise was proposed to avoid these specific cuts.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?[/p][/quote]Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing. 8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C. The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.[/p][/quote]Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs ! Not that one - these : "So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead. And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."[/p][/quote]Social care - the draft budget in November had efficiency savings across the board, including social care, because officers were asked to make targeted savings. Adult social care is the largest budget in the general fund, £112m last year, and rising due to an ageing local population. Meanwhile central government is withdrawing about £13m per year every year from our grant to pay for the bank bailout and nudge councils towards privatisation. You can't completely ignore rising social care costs, it's a time bomb. During the two month consultation period (a Green innovation I might add) it was the service reductions in social care and the subsidy for Able & Willing which received the strongest objections hence the referendum council tax rise was proposed to avoid these specific cuts. Eugenius
  • Score: -13

4:46pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
I've got some great news for you. You won the election. You were put in charge of the council.

You are no longer the opposition to the 2003-07 Labour council.

Times have changed. You have to take some responsibility, stop blaming others and harking back to the past. You will be back in opposition soon enough.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]I've got some great news for you. You won the election. You were put in charge of the council. You are no longer the opposition to the 2003-07 Labour council. Times have changed. You have to take some responsibility, stop blaming others and harking back to the past. You will be back in opposition soon enough. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 14

5:00pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Phani Tikkala says...

Obviously some of that ridiculous £900k budget on "communications" is being spent employing muppets like Eugenius, Gribbet and the loathsome HJarrs to spend their days commenting on Argus stories….
Obviously some of that ridiculous £900k budget on "communications" is being spent employing muppets like Eugenius, Gribbet and the loathsome HJarrs to spend their days commenting on Argus stories…. Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 12

5:01pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?
Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing.

8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C.

The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.
Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs !

Not that one - these :

"So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead.

And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."
Social care - the draft budget in November had efficiency savings across the board, including social care, because officers were asked to make targeted savings. Adult social care is the largest budget in the general fund, £112m last year, and rising due to an ageing local population. Meanwhile central government is withdrawing about £13m per year every year from our grant to pay for the bank bailout and nudge councils towards privatisation. You can't completely ignore rising social care costs, it's a time bomb. During the two month consultation period (a Green innovation I might add) it was the service reductions in social care and the subsidy for Able & Willing which received the strongest objections hence the referendum council tax rise was proposed to avoid these specific cuts.
And the costs of the referendum - where is that coming from if you lose ?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?[/p][/quote]Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing. 8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C. The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.[/p][/quote]Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs ! Not that one - these : "So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead. And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."[/p][/quote]Social care - the draft budget in November had efficiency savings across the board, including social care, because officers were asked to make targeted savings. Adult social care is the largest budget in the general fund, £112m last year, and rising due to an ageing local population. Meanwhile central government is withdrawing about £13m per year every year from our grant to pay for the bank bailout and nudge councils towards privatisation. You can't completely ignore rising social care costs, it's a time bomb. During the two month consultation period (a Green innovation I might add) it was the service reductions in social care and the subsidy for Able & Willing which received the strongest objections hence the referendum council tax rise was proposed to avoid these specific cuts.[/p][/quote]And the costs of the referendum - where is that coming from if you lose ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 10

5:03pm Fri 14 Feb 14

NickBtn says...

The greens are running an inefficient and expensive council. Their own officers and independent auditors say this (the latter they pay for and then ignore, yet more evidence of money to burn!)

There is also an agreement to spend £1.8m on 12 travellers pitches. That works out as 150k per caravan parking area! Whether you agree with spending money on traveller families or not, spending £150k on each pitch is a huge amount - that could build a reasonable house rather than a pitch! Once again, the greens are showing that they can't manage budgets. Yet they are asking for more money......
The greens are running an inefficient and expensive council. Their own officers and independent auditors say this (the latter they pay for and then ignore, yet more evidence of money to burn!) There is also an agreement to spend £1.8m on 12 travellers pitches. That works out as 150k per caravan parking area! Whether you agree with spending money on traveller families or not, spending £150k on each pitch is a huge amount - that could build a reasonable house rather than a pitch! Once again, the greens are showing that they can't manage budgets. Yet they are asking for more money...... NickBtn
  • Score: 15

5:06pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?
Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing.

8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C.

The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.
Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs !

Not that one - these :

"So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead.

And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."
Cost of losing the referendum - I don't think we would attempt to hold a referendum unless we thought it was winnable. If both the Green Party and Labour Party were campaigning for 4.75% then I think we would persuade enough people to vote 'Yes' - in 2011 65% of voters voted Green or Labour. And this is a policy which the Labour Party, if they still claim to be socialists, ought to be supporting. We haven't had the referendum campaign yet so I'm surprised 20% voluntarily offered to pay more council tax in the Argus poll without even being given any context as to why a rise is required. The council's budget consultation revealed that 56% would be prepared to pay more council tax, at least under certain circumstances.

If the referendum goes ahead and is lost then there is a net loss in one-off resources which would need to be replenished next year. Here's the extract from the budget:

"The one off funding gap of £583,000 will be covered by using the £249,000 set aside for future one off contributions to the pension fund and reducing the contribution to the 2015/16 Modernisation Fund by £334,000. Both these sums would need to be replenished as part of the 2015/16 budget setting process."
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?[/p][/quote]Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing. 8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C. The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.[/p][/quote]Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs ! Not that one - these : "So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead. And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."[/p][/quote]Cost of losing the referendum - I don't think we would attempt to hold a referendum unless we thought it was winnable. If both the Green Party and Labour Party were campaigning for 4.75% then I think we would persuade enough people to vote 'Yes' - in 2011 65% of voters voted Green or Labour. And this is a policy which the Labour Party, if they still claim to be socialists, ought to be supporting. We haven't had the referendum campaign yet so I'm surprised 20% voluntarily offered to pay more council tax in the Argus poll without even being given any context as to why a rise is required. The council's budget consultation revealed that 56% would be prepared to pay more council tax, at least under certain circumstances. If the referendum goes ahead and is lost then there is a net loss in one-off resources which would need to be replenished next year. Here's the extract from the budget: "The one off funding gap of £583,000 will be covered by using the £249,000 set aside for future one off contributions to the pension fund and reducing the contribution to the 2015/16 Modernisation Fund by £334,000. Both these sums would need to be replenished as part of the 2015/16 budget setting process." Eugenius
  • Score: -12

5:18pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?
Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing.

8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C.

The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.
Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs !

Not that one - these :

"So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead.

And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."
Cost of losing the referendum - I don't think we would attempt to hold a referendum unless we thought it was winnable. If both the Green Party and Labour Party were campaigning for 4.75% then I think we would persuade enough people to vote 'Yes' - in 2011 65% of voters voted Green or Labour. And this is a policy which the Labour Party, if they still claim to be socialists, ought to be supporting. We haven't had the referendum campaign yet so I'm surprised 20% voluntarily offered to pay more council tax in the Argus poll without even being given any context as to why a rise is required. The council's budget consultation revealed that 56% would be prepared to pay more council tax, at least under certain circumstances.

If the referendum goes ahead and is lost then there is a net loss in one-off resources which would need to be replenished next year. Here's the extract from the budget:

"The one off funding gap of £583,000 will be covered by using the £249,000 set aside for future one off contributions to the pension fund and reducing the contribution to the 2015/16 Modernisation Fund by £334,000. Both these sums would need to be replenished as part of the 2015/16 budget setting process."
Ah yes, the costs has to be met by the taxpayer. You could of course save £230k - £900k ( depending who's figures you believe ) by NOT running the referendum.

All this farce is about is internal politics of the Green party - attempting to shift the responsibility for deciding where the cuts should fall.

It was rather interesting to see the Greens lost their deposit in the by-election yesterday ( I suggest you prepare for this next year ! ) and only managed to poll 48 more votes than the BNP !!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?[/p][/quote]Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing. 8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C. The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.[/p][/quote]Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs ! Not that one - these : "So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead. And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."[/p][/quote]Cost of losing the referendum - I don't think we would attempt to hold a referendum unless we thought it was winnable. If both the Green Party and Labour Party were campaigning for 4.75% then I think we would persuade enough people to vote 'Yes' - in 2011 65% of voters voted Green or Labour. And this is a policy which the Labour Party, if they still claim to be socialists, ought to be supporting. We haven't had the referendum campaign yet so I'm surprised 20% voluntarily offered to pay more council tax in the Argus poll without even being given any context as to why a rise is required. The council's budget consultation revealed that 56% would be prepared to pay more council tax, at least under certain circumstances. If the referendum goes ahead and is lost then there is a net loss in one-off resources which would need to be replenished next year. Here's the extract from the budget: "The one off funding gap of £583,000 will be covered by using the £249,000 set aside for future one off contributions to the pension fund and reducing the contribution to the 2015/16 Modernisation Fund by £334,000. Both these sums would need to be replenished as part of the 2015/16 budget setting process."[/p][/quote]Ah yes, the costs has to be met by the taxpayer. You could of course save £230k - £900k ( depending who's figures you believe ) by NOT running the referendum. All this farce is about is internal politics of the Green party - attempting to shift the responsibility for deciding where the cuts should fall. It was rather interesting to see the Greens lost their deposit in the by-election yesterday ( I suggest you prepare for this next year ! ) and only managed to poll 48 more votes than the BNP !!!!!!!! Fight_Back
  • Score: 13

5:27pm Fri 14 Feb 14

NickBtn says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?
Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing.

8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C.

The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.
Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs !

Not that one - these :

"So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead.

And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."
Cost of losing the referendum - I don't think we would attempt to hold a referendum unless we thought it was winnable. If both the Green Party and Labour Party were campaigning for 4.75% then I think we would persuade enough people to vote 'Yes' - in 2011 65% of voters voted Green or Labour. And this is a policy which the Labour Party, if they still claim to be socialists, ought to be supporting. We haven't had the referendum campaign yet so I'm surprised 20% voluntarily offered to pay more council tax in the Argus poll without even being given any context as to why a rise is required. The council's budget consultation revealed that 56% would be prepared to pay more council tax, at least under certain circumstances.

If the referendum goes ahead and is lost then there is a net loss in one-off resources which would need to be replenished next year. Here's the extract from the budget:

"The one off funding gap of £583,000 will be covered by using the £249,000 set aside for future one off contributions to the pension fund and reducing the contribution to the 2015/16 Modernisation Fund by £334,000. Both these sums would need to be replenished as part of the 2015/16 budget setting process."
I am one of the 65% that voted green/labour last time and you certainly won't get me to vote yes.

If I could see that the council really needed the money and people were in trouble then yes. However the council is running very inefficiently (in the worst 5% according to auditors). Being in the bottom 5% gets a fail in most exams! This is our money that is being wasted. For example seven dials - the scheme maybe but the extra expense for such visually appealing materials? The travellers site spend. £150k per pitch. That's much more than each caravan that will use it - how can that be? 20mph, city wide and not focussed on accident blackspots, widely ignored yet to be extended.

Each case budgets not well spent - much better value for money possible rather than these "gold plated" versions that suit pre austerity times. If this was the councillors' own money would they spend so extravagantly? I doubt it.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?[/p][/quote]Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing. 8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C. The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.[/p][/quote]Sigh ...... it's like pulling teeth with you and Hjarrs ! Not that one - these : "So STILL the Greens haven't explained why they have picked social care for the cuts when there are other budgets that can be cut instead. And STILL the Greens haven't explained where the £900k cost of losing the referendum will come from."[/p][/quote]Cost of losing the referendum - I don't think we would attempt to hold a referendum unless we thought it was winnable. If both the Green Party and Labour Party were campaigning for 4.75% then I think we would persuade enough people to vote 'Yes' - in 2011 65% of voters voted Green or Labour. And this is a policy which the Labour Party, if they still claim to be socialists, ought to be supporting. We haven't had the referendum campaign yet so I'm surprised 20% voluntarily offered to pay more council tax in the Argus poll without even being given any context as to why a rise is required. The council's budget consultation revealed that 56% would be prepared to pay more council tax, at least under certain circumstances. If the referendum goes ahead and is lost then there is a net loss in one-off resources which would need to be replenished next year. Here's the extract from the budget: "The one off funding gap of £583,000 will be covered by using the £249,000 set aside for future one off contributions to the pension fund and reducing the contribution to the 2015/16 Modernisation Fund by £334,000. Both these sums would need to be replenished as part of the 2015/16 budget setting process."[/p][/quote]I am one of the 65% that voted green/labour last time and you certainly won't get me to vote yes. If I could see that the council really needed the money and people were in trouble then yes. However the council is running very inefficiently (in the worst 5% according to auditors). Being in the bottom 5% gets a fail in most exams! This is our money that is being wasted. For example seven dials - the scheme maybe but the extra expense for such visually appealing materials? The travellers site spend. £150k per pitch. That's much more than each caravan that will use it - how can that be? 20mph, city wide and not focussed on accident blackspots, widely ignored yet to be extended. Each case budgets not well spent - much better value for money possible rather than these "gold plated" versions that suit pre austerity times. If this was the councillors' own money would they spend so extravagantly? I doubt it. NickBtn
  • Score: 16

6:28pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

That's not quite what they said, the external auditor's report pointed out we were in the top 5% of our group of comparative councils for spend on children's services and housing. That doesn't necessarily mean inefficient spending. The rest of the report praised the direction of travel in bringing costs down:

"The Council has a well established value for money (VFM) programme and a good track record of delivering its planned savings that has continued into 2012/13. Total 2012/13 VFM savings of £10.080 million have been achieved against an original target of £6.933 million, representing an over-achievement of 45 per cent."
That's not quite what they said, the external auditor's report pointed out we were in the top 5% of our group of comparative councils for spend on children's services and housing. That doesn't necessarily mean inefficient spending. The rest of the report praised the direction of travel in bringing costs down: "The Council has a well established value for money (VFM) programme and a good track record of delivering its planned savings that has continued into 2012/13. Total 2012/13 VFM savings of £10.080 million have been achieved against an original target of £6.933 million, representing an over-achievement of 45 per cent." Eugenius
  • Score: -9

6:31pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ourcoalition says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
What is with the Shmargus not allowing comments on articles regarding travellers? Very odd indeed, What political alegance does this paper have? All residents would like the option to air their views on these gutter rats
"gutter rats" - I think the answer to your question is your language. I suggest you read some of the National Socialist (aka Nazi Party) descriptions of the Jews of Europe from the 1930's - you might find that term used then.

But then you know that. See you at the March for England - you on the EDL side, and me on the other!!!
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: What is with the Shmargus not allowing comments on articles regarding travellers? Very odd indeed, What political alegance does this paper have? All residents would like the option to air their views on these gutter rats[/p][/quote]"gutter rats" - I think the answer to your question is your language. I suggest you read some of the National Socialist (aka Nazi Party) descriptions of the Jews of Europe from the 1930's - you might find that term used then. But then you know that. See you at the March for England - you on the EDL side, and me on the other!!! ourcoalition
  • Score: -4

7:29pm Fri 14 Feb 14

NickBtn says...

Eugenius wrote:
That's not quite what they said, the external auditor's report pointed out we were in the top 5% of our group of comparative councils for spend on children's services and housing. That doesn't necessarily mean inefficient spending. The rest of the report praised the direction of travel in bringing costs down:

"The Council has a well established value for money (VFM) programme and a good track record of delivering its planned savings that has continued into 2012/13. Total 2012/13 VFM savings of £10.080 million have been achieved against an original target of £6.933 million, representing an over-achievement of 45 per cent."
If my supermarket spend was in the top 5% of spenders compared to "comparative" others then I'd be buying all the luxury options. I agree that I wouldn't be inefficient if I did this, rather I'd be enjoying a very high standard of life. However I can't afford to do that and so can't most (95%) of others. Odd that the greens want to spend at such a luxury level. We should cut our cloth to what residents can afford and set no rise above average wise rise (so I think even labours 2% is too high as this will still squeeze people further on average vs wage rise).

If some schemes have to suffer to afford this then I think that's acceptable. As we're spending in the top 5% we can cut a lot until we're spending at average levels. Why not provide some services at supermarket named brand or own label levels? Why aim for prestige/luxury/top 5% levels?

It's good that there have been savings. However much more can be done from the report you quote - praising the direction of travel as you say. If this is done - why the need for a council tax rise?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: That's not quite what they said, the external auditor's report pointed out we were in the top 5% of our group of comparative councils for spend on children's services and housing. That doesn't necessarily mean inefficient spending. The rest of the report praised the direction of travel in bringing costs down: "The Council has a well established value for money (VFM) programme and a good track record of delivering its planned savings that has continued into 2012/13. Total 2012/13 VFM savings of £10.080 million have been achieved against an original target of £6.933 million, representing an over-achievement of 45 per cent."[/p][/quote]If my supermarket spend was in the top 5% of spenders compared to "comparative" others then I'd be buying all the luxury options. I agree that I wouldn't be inefficient if I did this, rather I'd be enjoying a very high standard of life. However I can't afford to do that and so can't most (95%) of others. Odd that the greens want to spend at such a luxury level. We should cut our cloth to what residents can afford and set no rise above average wise rise (so I think even labours 2% is too high as this will still squeeze people further on average vs wage rise). If some schemes have to suffer to afford this then I think that's acceptable. As we're spending in the top 5% we can cut a lot until we're spending at average levels. Why not provide some services at supermarket named brand or own label levels? Why aim for prestige/luxury/top 5% levels? It's good that there have been savings. However much more can be done from the report you quote - praising the direction of travel as you say. If this is done - why the need for a council tax rise? NickBtn
  • Score: 12

8:17pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Eugenius, or Geoffrey Bowden as you are more commonly known at the council, how much did your party spend on hiring and erecting the marquees in Wild Park to celebrate the opening of the Lewes road cycle lane, which had in fact been open for more than a decade?
Come on how much did you spend for the group of 10 people who attended just for a PR photoshoot?
It was probably the only weekend a wild Park was open because you let the travellers in for the rest of the year so the locals couldn't use it.
Move on Greens, the only Eco you are is Eco-nomical with the truth.
Eugenius, or Geoffrey Bowden as you are more commonly known at the council, how much did your party spend on hiring and erecting the marquees in Wild Park to celebrate the opening of the Lewes road cycle lane, which had in fact been open for more than a decade? Come on how much did you spend for the group of 10 people who attended just for a PR photoshoot? It was probably the only weekend a wild Park was open because you let the travellers in for the rest of the year so the locals couldn't use it. Move on Greens, the only Eco you are is Eco-nomical with the truth. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 22

8:33pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Hove Actually says...

KitPRATT Nil

Council Tax Payers WON..........get over it you silly boy
KitPRATT Nil Council Tax Payers WON..........get over it you silly boy Hove Actually
  • Score: 14

10:33pm Fri 14 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?
Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing.

8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C.

The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.
Eugenius - don't you people see that it doesn't matter whether it's £1.30, £2.62, £6 or £100 a month...?

Rightly or wrongly, everyone thinks it will just be spent on cycle lanes, bus lanes, 20 signs and traveler pitches rather than what the city needs right now, because that's all that the Green administration seems to have shown any interest in for the last 3 years?

I know it doesn't work like that, but the council's PR machine is so utterly diabolical, that this referendum is like a junkie asking for money and promising not to spend it on more drugs.

Cancel all the vanity projects, admit that your transport policies are not what the majority of Brighton & Hove constituents want, and THEN ask about a council tax increase.

Otherwise don't waste any more of our f**king money. It won't be long before it runs out.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]And STILL a Green who decides to attack political opponents rather than answer simple and important questions. Or is it you want to hide the answers ?[/p][/quote]Ok, let's look at the affordability question. Warren claims £6 per month but this is the increase for a above average band E property, and the difference for band E is £3 compared to what Labour are proposing. 8.6% of residents have a band E property but 70% of households in the city are in the lower bands A-C. The referendum increase is equivalent to an extra £2.62 per month or less for most households (bands A-C) compared to Labour's budget proposal. And that's the increase for a household of two or more people, so I think it's fair to say we're asking £1.30 a month extra or less per person for most residents. There is a council tax reduction scheme to further reduce that by up to 90% if you're on a very low income or pension.[/p][/quote]Eugenius - don't you people see that it doesn't matter whether it's £1.30, £2.62, £6 or £100 a month...? Rightly or wrongly, everyone thinks it will just be spent on cycle lanes, bus lanes, 20 signs and traveler pitches rather than what the city needs right now, because that's all that the Green administration seems to have shown any interest in for the last 3 years? I know it doesn't work like that, but the council's PR machine is so utterly diabolical, that this referendum is like a junkie asking for money and promising not to spend it on more drugs. Cancel all the vanity projects, admit that your transport policies are not what the majority of Brighton & Hove constituents want, and THEN ask about a council tax increase. Otherwise don't waste any more of our f**king money. It won't be long before it runs out. cynic_the
  • Score: 21

10:50pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

The post above hits the nail on the head for so many people.

The Greens have an abysmal track record and have proved time and time again that they just can't be trusted with spending OUR money.
The post above hits the nail on the head for so many people. The Greens have an abysmal track record and have proved time and time again that they just can't be trusted with spending OUR money. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 18

11:04pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Richada says...

wexler53 wrote:
Ok Kit Kat and chums - NO NO NO

What do you not understand about this word?

Most of the truly hacked off (your doing incidentally) taxpayers of Brighton & Hove do NOT want your increase of 4.75%.

Actually, we don't want you and your fellows either, but if you want to play at national politics, try to get yourself elected as an MP (good luck with that, you'd need it).

We want an efficient and accountable council running good quality and cost effective LOCAL services on our behalf - your employers and financiers incidentally, the taxpayer, in case you have forgotten?

And just for good measure, please take the i360 and place it with your head. That is, where the sun doesn't shine...
That, oh great leader, is what the great majority of us think.
[quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: Ok Kit Kat and chums - NO NO NO What do you not understand about this word? Most of the truly hacked off (your doing incidentally) taxpayers of Brighton & Hove do NOT want your increase of 4.75%. Actually, we don't want you and your fellows either, but if you want to play at national politics, try to get yourself elected as an MP (good luck with that, you'd need it). We want an efficient and accountable council running good quality and cost effective LOCAL services on our behalf - your employers and financiers incidentally, the taxpayer, in case you have forgotten? And just for good measure, please take the i360 and place it with your head. That is, where the sun doesn't shine...[/p][/quote]That, oh great leader, is what the great majority of us think. Richada
  • Score: 12

11:29pm Fri 14 Feb 14

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

HJ says we have truly been found lacking and found out!
HJ says we have truly been found lacking and found out! I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 7

11:44pm Fri 14 Feb 14

TonE60 says...

I find it amusing that in another story, the greens are demanding that cabinet ministers be sacked, but they don't want to listen when people criticise them over things like the council tax and other pet projects of theirs. No! They are right, and everybody else is wrong! The sooner they're gone, the better, and, God forbid, should they ever win enough votes to become the National Government, I will emigrate ASAP!
I find it amusing that in another story, the greens are demanding that cabinet ministers be sacked, but they don't want to listen when people criticise them over things like the council tax and other pet projects of theirs. No! They are right, and everybody else is wrong! The sooner they're gone, the better, and, God forbid, should they ever win enough votes to become the National Government, I will emigrate ASAP! TonE60
  • Score: 8

9:14am Sat 15 Feb 14

Richada says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
HJ says we have truly been found lacking and found out!
I wish he'd tell Mssrs Davey & Kitcat then!
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: HJ says we have truly been found lacking and found out![/p][/quote]I wish he'd tell Mssrs Davey & Kitcat then! Richada
  • Score: 7

2:18pm Sat 15 Feb 14

Tallywhacker says...

Eugenius wrote:
What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved.

And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%
I don't care what happened in the past. it's what YOU are doing now that matters so stop with the excuses of look what they did before.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: What Warren doesn't mention is that the last Labour council in Brighton & Hove was happily spending close to £2m per year on publicity, including the quarterly "City News" newspaper. So that expense has now been halved. And don't forget in 2003 they hiked council tax by 14.5%, following increases of 12.5% and 10.9%[/p][/quote]I don't care what happened in the past. it's what YOU are doing now that matters so stop with the excuses of look what they did before. Tallywhacker
  • Score: 11

8:33pm Sat 15 Feb 14

keswick says...

And whilst on the subject of this rabble wasting yet more money how about the mess they are making of Ditchling Road. Cycle lanes for the Green supporters. Where is HJarrs ? Off on the school holidays ??
And whilst on the subject of this rabble wasting yet more money how about the mess they are making of Ditchling Road. Cycle lanes for the Green supporters. Where is HJarrs ? Off on the school holidays ?? keswick
  • Score: 6

8:38am Sun 16 Feb 14

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

keswick wrote:
And whilst on the subject of this rabble wasting yet more money how about the mess they are making of Ditchling Road. Cycle lanes for the Green supporters. Where is HJarrs ? Off on the school holidays ??
HJ has taken time out to travel to the family villa in Sardinia to recuperate after months of posting propaganda and spin.

The journey was tiresome, although did not include public transport, or cycling as of course with such inherited wealth, money is no object.
[quote][p][bold]keswick[/bold] wrote: And whilst on the subject of this rabble wasting yet more money how about the mess they are making of Ditchling Road. Cycle lanes for the Green supporters. Where is HJarrs ? Off on the school holidays ??[/p][/quote]HJ has taken time out to travel to the family villa in Sardinia to recuperate after months of posting propaganda and spin. The journey was tiresome, although did not include public transport, or cycling as of course with such inherited wealth, money is no object. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 3

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