The ArgusBrighton and Hove council tax rise set at 1.99% (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 set at 1.99%

The Argus: Brighton and Hove council tax rise set at 1.99% Brighton and Hove council tax rise set at 1.99%

Brighton and Hove residents will face a 1.99% rise in council tax after councillors finally agreed next year's budget. 

At a special meeting of full council this afternoon, following last week's five hour meeting when no agreement could be reached, a cross party amendment was unanimously voted through. 

And despite 20 no votes for the budget as a whole, there were 26 yes votes and three abstentions meaning the budget was passed. 

It followed another attempt by the Green Party to push through their 4.75% rise which would have meant a referendum for the city. 

But it was again voted down. 

 

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:28pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

Good!
Good! Man of steel
  • Score: 17

6:40pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Martha Gunn says...

The infantile antics of the Green Party will never be forgiven by the people of Brighton and Hove.

We have all had enough of the dreadful experiment they have foisted on us.

Never again.

Roll on 2015.
The infantile antics of the Green Party will never be forgiven by the people of Brighton and Hove. We have all had enough of the dreadful experiment they have foisted on us. Never again. Roll on 2015. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 56

6:43pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Can't believe the Greens tried the 4.75% AGAIN !

Common sense has finally prevailed.
Can't believe the Greens tried the 4.75% AGAIN ! Common sense has finally prevailed. Fight_Back
  • Score: 40

6:44pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Withdean-er says...

Pleased and relieved that it isn't higher. Council tax is already a substantial bill for the typical hard-working and hard-pressed family, and a modest increase or none at all was the right thing.

Let's see if the Administration's exaggerated claims that this will leave to noticeable cuts in jobs and closure of key public services - actually pans out, or was in deed an exaggeration.
Pleased and relieved that it isn't higher. Council tax is already a substantial bill for the typical hard-working and hard-pressed family, and a modest increase or none at all was the right thing. Let's see if the Administration's exaggerated claims that this will leave to noticeable cuts in jobs and closure of key public services - actually pans out, or was in deed an exaggeration. Withdean-er
  • Score: 37

6:46pm Wed 5 Mar 14

bluemonday says...

somebody tell bbc south east news,they think the meeting is still deadlocked,at 18.46
somebody tell bbc south east news,they think the meeting is still deadlocked,at 18.46 bluemonday
  • Score: 15

6:50pm Wed 5 Mar 14

RK_Brighton says...

Finally.

All such a mess and waste of everyone's time.

This should just have been voted through last week without all the trouble.

Can't wait to be rid of the Green's. What a mess they are making of everything.
Finally. All such a mess and waste of everyone's time. This should just have been voted through last week without all the trouble. Can't wait to be rid of the Green's. What a mess they are making of everything. RK_Brighton
  • Score: 37

6:56pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Hove Actually says...

bluemonday wrote:
somebody tell bbc south east news,they think the meeting is still deadlocked,at 18.46
The greens and the BBC have a lot in common
Both spend public money with no regard to those they pretend to serve and both fail to realise the value of it as well
[quote][p][bold]bluemonday[/bold] wrote: somebody tell bbc south east news,they think the meeting is still deadlocked,at 18.46[/p][/quote]The greens and the BBC have a lot in common Both spend public money with no regard to those they pretend to serve and both fail to realise the value of it as well Hove Actually
  • Score: 21

6:57pm Wed 5 Mar 14

VoxUnpopuli says...

Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted. VoxUnpopuli
  • Score: -36

7:02pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rolivan says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
No mention of the Debt Labour left?
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]No mention of the Debt Labour left? rolivan
  • Score: 14

7:10pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Withdean-er says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
Embarrassingly blinkered, ill informed and party political 'view'.

In what form exactly was state money given to the bankers?

And didn't Brown, Blair, Moribund and Balls spend 13 rather cosy years in with those very same bankers? Socialists? No.

Taxation from working people is the same whether it's taken locally as council tax, or centrally by VAT, income tax and National Insurance .... and then redirected by Government to councils as it part used to be. In other words, working people would still have paid for it under the old system. Glad to see taxes in general being reined in as they hit working people, even if that's unpalatable to those who believe in greater and greater taxes to support ever more public sector jobs and grants.
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]Embarrassingly blinkered, ill informed and party political 'view'. In what form exactly was state money given to the bankers? And didn't Brown, Blair, Moribund and Balls spend 13 rather cosy years in with those very same bankers? Socialists? No. Taxation from working people is the same whether it's taken locally as council tax, or centrally by VAT, income tax and National Insurance .... and then redirected by Government to councils as it part used to be. In other words, working people would still have paid for it under the old system. Glad to see taxes in general being reined in as they hit working people, even if that's unpalatable to those who believe in greater and greater taxes to support ever more public sector jobs and grants. Withdean-er
  • Score: 13

7:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

VoxUnpopuli says...

rolivan wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
No mention of the Debt Labour left?
Let's say for argument's sake that the debt was all Labour's fault. After all they were in charge when the bankers lost all our money. But it was Cameron's job to sort it out. Tory policy is usually to let failing industry die (Coal, Steel, Ship Building) rather than bail it out. Strangely bankers were the exception and needed to be saved. Why is that? Could Cameron and co being their Old Etonian chums have anything to do with it? Yes, I think it could.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]No mention of the Debt Labour left?[/p][/quote]Let's say for argument's sake that the debt was all Labour's fault. After all they were in charge when the bankers lost all our money. But it was Cameron's job to sort it out. Tory policy is usually to let failing industry die (Coal, Steel, Ship Building) rather than bail it out. Strangely bankers were the exception and needed to be saved. Why is that? Could Cameron and co being their Old Etonian chums have anything to do with it? Yes, I think it could. VoxUnpopuli
  • Score: -1

7:14pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Nobleox says...

It was a bigger certainty than the sun rising the Greens would have to settle for the 1.90% increase.
It was a bigger certainty than the sun rising the Greens would have to settle for the 1.90% increase. Nobleox
  • Score: 9

7:18pm Wed 5 Mar 14

pwlr1966 says...

Surely that’s wrong, it should be a rebate for the appalling waste service we have?
Surely that’s wrong, it should be a rebate for the appalling waste service we have? pwlr1966
  • Score: 37

7:19pm Wed 5 Mar 14

VoxUnpopuli says...

Withdean-er wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
Embarrassingly blinkered, ill informed and party political 'view'.

In what form exactly was state money given to the bankers?

And didn't Brown, Blair, Moribund and Balls spend 13 rather cosy years in with those very same bankers? Socialists? No.

Taxation from working people is the same whether it's taken locally as council tax, or centrally by VAT, income tax and National Insurance .... and then redirected by Government to councils as it part used to be. In other words, working people would still have paid for it under the old system. Glad to see taxes in general being reined in as they hit working people, even if that's unpalatable to those who believe in greater and greater taxes to support ever more public sector jobs and grants.
I suggest you do some revision of recent history if you really can't remember what happened! To recap, the banks were bailed out with our money after their reserves turned out to be worthless IOUs (bonds) which they had been circulating amongst themselves and claiming to be worth billions. The banks were in effect nationalised by the Torys, just like Labour did in the 60s with industry. To rub salt in the wounds RBS have lost all the billions we gave them on top of what they already lost!
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]Embarrassingly blinkered, ill informed and party political 'view'. In what form exactly was state money given to the bankers? And didn't Brown, Blair, Moribund and Balls spend 13 rather cosy years in with those very same bankers? Socialists? No. Taxation from working people is the same whether it's taken locally as council tax, or centrally by VAT, income tax and National Insurance .... and then redirected by Government to councils as it part used to be. In other words, working people would still have paid for it under the old system. Glad to see taxes in general being reined in as they hit working people, even if that's unpalatable to those who believe in greater and greater taxes to support ever more public sector jobs and grants.[/p][/quote]I suggest you do some revision of recent history if you really can't remember what happened! To recap, the banks were bailed out with our money after their reserves turned out to be worthless IOUs (bonds) which they had been circulating amongst themselves and claiming to be worth billions. The banks were in effect nationalised by the Torys, just like Labour did in the 60s with industry. To rub salt in the wounds RBS have lost all the billions we gave them on top of what they already lost! VoxUnpopuli
  • Score: 7

7:27pm Wed 5 Mar 14

kmhove says...

Sense at last!
Sense at last! kmhove
  • Score: 6

7:29pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rolivan says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
rolivan wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
No mention of the Debt Labour left?
Let's say for argument's sake that the debt was all Labour's fault. After all they were in charge when the bankers lost all our money. But it was Cameron's job to sort it out. Tory policy is usually to let failing industry die (Coal, Steel, Ship Building) rather than bail it out. Strangely bankers were the exception and needed to be saved. Why is that? Could Cameron and co being their Old Etonian chums have anything to do with it? Yes, I think it could.
Up until 10 years ago I was a Conservative Voter and virtually all of my workng life have lived under a Socialist Goverment in 3 different Countries.They are all as bad as one another promise You everything and give you nothing.
I thought it was Brown that Bailed out The Banks.For He and Blair to call themselves Socialists is as far from the Truth as you could get.
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]No mention of the Debt Labour left?[/p][/quote]Let's say for argument's sake that the debt was all Labour's fault. After all they were in charge when the bankers lost all our money. But it was Cameron's job to sort it out. Tory policy is usually to let failing industry die (Coal, Steel, Ship Building) rather than bail it out. Strangely bankers were the exception and needed to be saved. Why is that? Could Cameron and co being their Old Etonian chums have anything to do with it? Yes, I think it could.[/p][/quote]Up until 10 years ago I was a Conservative Voter and virtually all of my workng life have lived under a Socialist Goverment in 3 different Countries.They are all as bad as one another promise You everything and give you nothing. I thought it was Brown that Bailed out The Banks.For He and Blair to call themselves Socialists is as far from the Truth as you could get. rolivan
  • Score: 14

7:49pm Wed 5 Mar 14

city-boy says...

1.99% is still a hike in a static wage market (for most).

Along with child care, increasing food costs, fuel and general standard of living we have all had a salary decreases over the last 4-5 years......


Not sustainable at all.

Rich are getting richer by the day .....

It's 2014 - real incomes needed for the modern day!!!!

Absolute disgrace that we find ourselves in this situation!!!!
1.99% is still a hike in a static wage market (for most). Along with child care, increasing food costs, fuel and general standard of living we have all had a salary decreases over the last 4-5 years...... Not sustainable at all. Rich are getting richer by the day ..... It's 2014 - real incomes needed for the modern day!!!! Absolute disgrace that we find ourselves in this situation!!!! city-boy
  • Score: 19

7:59pm Wed 5 Mar 14

kurtis79 says...

Maybe instead of spending money on silly signs all round the city to tell you "you are here!" and making stupid traffic regulation desicion that impact everyone, then we wouldn't need to put up the council tax year on year to pay for their experiments, not sure what world these people live in as year on year our wages don't go up by 2% som of use ain't had a pay rise in over 5 years because of recession, perhaps they get one but , roll on 2015
Maybe instead of spending money on silly signs all round the city to tell you "you are here!" and making stupid traffic regulation desicion that impact everyone, then we wouldn't need to put up the council tax year on year to pay for their experiments, not sure what world these people live in as year on year our wages don't go up by 2% som of use ain't had a pay rise in over 5 years because of recession, perhaps they get one but , roll on 2015 kurtis79
  • Score: 16

8:00pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Richada says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
The infantile antics of the Green Party will never be forgiven by the people of Brighton and Hove.

We have all had enough of the dreadful experiment they have foisted on us.

Never again.

Roll on 2015.
Here here!
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: The infantile antics of the Green Party will never be forgiven by the people of Brighton and Hove. We have all had enough of the dreadful experiment they have foisted on us. Never again. Roll on 2015.[/p][/quote]Here here! Richada
  • Score: 18

9:10pm Wed 5 Mar 14

wexler53 says...

Cue the greens making it an even bigger mess of running our services with our money and blaming it on not getting their ridiculous rise through.

The madness, albeit slightly curtailed rolls on.

For goodness sake KitKat, go now - why wait for the inevitable? We've had enough of you and your so called party.
Cue the greens making it an even bigger mess of running our services with our money and blaming it on not getting their ridiculous rise through. The madness, albeit slightly curtailed rolls on. For goodness sake KitKat, go now - why wait for the inevitable? We've had enough of you and your so called party. wexler53
  • Score: 18

9:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Martha Gunn says...

Lucas and Kitcat will only be remembered as the politicians who in the name of so-called 'One-Planet' living brought medieval middens to our 21st Century city.

Never again!
Lucas and Kitcat will only be remembered as the politicians who in the name of so-called 'One-Planet' living brought medieval middens to our 21st Century city. Never again! Martha Gunn
  • Score: 16

9:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

her professional says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
Well said.
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]Well said. her professional
  • Score: -12

9:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do.
The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing.
They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides.
Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave.
This is what having an ideal is.
This is honourable.
This is integrity.

Que the trolls...
I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do. The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing. They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides. Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave. This is what having an ideal is. This is honourable. This is integrity. Que the trolls... theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: -11

9:27pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ania Green says...

It's a real shame that some of the most vulnerable people in our city will suffer as a result of the reduced council tax increase.

All the Argus comments here that are pleased about the reduced increase will be the first people to complain when these vital services are not getting the cash injection they deserve.

Shame on all of you.
It's a real shame that some of the most vulnerable people in our city will suffer as a result of the reduced council tax increase. All the Argus comments here that are pleased about the reduced increase will be the first people to complain when these vital services are not getting the cash injection they deserve. Shame on all of you. Ania Green
  • Score: -25

9:29pm Wed 5 Mar 14

her professional says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
rolivan wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
No mention of the Debt Labour left?
Let's say for argument's sake that the debt was all Labour's fault. After all they were in charge when the bankers lost all our money. But it was Cameron's job to sort it out. Tory policy is usually to let failing industry die (Coal, Steel, Ship Building) rather than bail it out. Strangely bankers were the exception and needed to be saved. Why is that? Could Cameron and co being their Old Etonian chums have anything to do with it? Yes, I think it could.
Quite right. And don't forget they look after their landowner farmer mates as well, plenty of subsidy for them.
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]No mention of the Debt Labour left?[/p][/quote]Let's say for argument's sake that the debt was all Labour's fault. After all they were in charge when the bankers lost all our money. But it was Cameron's job to sort it out. Tory policy is usually to let failing industry die (Coal, Steel, Ship Building) rather than bail it out. Strangely bankers were the exception and needed to be saved. Why is that? Could Cameron and co being their Old Etonian chums have anything to do with it? Yes, I think it could.[/p][/quote]Quite right. And don't forget they look after their landowner farmer mates as well, plenty of subsidy for them. her professional
  • Score: -5

9:35pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Bill in Hanover says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
And don't forget that the Green party run Council overspent on the traveller budget by £200,000 last year, perhaps if they worried more about the taxpaying residents than these non paying uninvited guests then there would be money for the groups you mention.
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]And don't forget that the Green party run Council overspent on the traveller budget by £200,000 last year, perhaps if they worried more about the taxpaying residents than these non paying uninvited guests then there would be money for the groups you mention. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 11

9:36pm Wed 5 Mar 14

JHunty says...

Ania Green wrote:
It's a real shame that some of the most vulnerable people in our city will suffer as a result of the reduced council tax increase.

All the Argus comments here that are pleased about the reduced increase will be the first people to complain when these vital services are not getting the cash injection they deserve.

Shame on all of you.
Sockpuppet or Jason's mrs?
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: It's a real shame that some of the most vulnerable people in our city will suffer as a result of the reduced council tax increase. All the Argus comments here that are pleased about the reduced increase will be the first people to complain when these vital services are not getting the cash injection they deserve. Shame on all of you.[/p][/quote]Sockpuppet or Jason's mrs? JHunty
  • Score: 14

9:41pm Wed 5 Mar 14

BlackRocker says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Withdean-er wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
Embarrassingly blinkered, ill informed and party political 'view'.

In what form exactly was state money given to the bankers?

And didn't Brown, Blair, Moribund and Balls spend 13 rather cosy years in with those very same bankers? Socialists? No.

Taxation from working people is the same whether it's taken locally as council tax, or centrally by VAT, income tax and National Insurance .... and then redirected by Government to councils as it part used to be. In other words, working people would still have paid for it under the old system. Glad to see taxes in general being reined in as they hit working people, even if that's unpalatable to those who believe in greater and greater taxes to support ever more public sector jobs and grants.
I suggest you do some revision of recent history if you really can't remember what happened! To recap, the banks were bailed out with our money after their reserves turned out to be worthless IOUs (bonds) which they had been circulating amongst themselves and claiming to be worth billions. The banks were in effect nationalised by the Torys, just like Labour did in the 60s with industry. To rub salt in the wounds RBS have lost all the billions we gave them on top of what they already lost!
PS: The plural of Tory is Tories, our don't you read the newspapers?
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]Embarrassingly blinkered, ill informed and party political 'view'. In what form exactly was state money given to the bankers? And didn't Brown, Blair, Moribund and Balls spend 13 rather cosy years in with those very same bankers? Socialists? No. Taxation from working people is the same whether it's taken locally as council tax, or centrally by VAT, income tax and National Insurance .... and then redirected by Government to councils as it part used to be. In other words, working people would still have paid for it under the old system. Glad to see taxes in general being reined in as they hit working people, even if that's unpalatable to those who believe in greater and greater taxes to support ever more public sector jobs and grants.[/p][/quote]I suggest you do some revision of recent history if you really can't remember what happened! To recap, the banks were bailed out with our money after their reserves turned out to be worthless IOUs (bonds) which they had been circulating amongst themselves and claiming to be worth billions. The banks were in effect nationalised by the Torys, just like Labour did in the 60s with industry. To rub salt in the wounds RBS have lost all the billions we gave them on top of what they already lost![/p][/quote]PS: The plural of Tory is Tories, our don't you read the newspapers? BlackRocker
  • Score: 1

9:44pm Wed 5 Mar 14

BlackRocker says...

PPS: I don't know about the rest of you, but I can never quite take seriously the opinion of someone who hasn't mastered basic English spelling.
PPS: I don't know about the rest of you, but I can never quite take seriously the opinion of someone who hasn't mastered basic English spelling. BlackRocker
  • Score: 6

9:45pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ourcoalition says...

rolivan wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
No mention of the Debt Labour left?
You have fallen for the Con Dems propaganda - if Labour hadn't bailed out the Banks the country would be a basket case.

Ironic that it is only in the UK that Gordon Brown is blamed, whereas the rest of the world (friends and enemies) credit him as being the main leader who found a way through a near disaster.

I'm not a New Labour/Gordon Brown fan in any way, but facts are facts - unlike the lies of Cameron and his pals!!
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]No mention of the Debt Labour left?[/p][/quote]You have fallen for the Con Dems propaganda - if Labour hadn't bailed out the Banks the country would be a basket case. Ironic that it is only in the UK that Gordon Brown is blamed, whereas the rest of the world (friends and enemies) credit him as being the main leader who found a way through a near disaster. I'm not a New Labour/Gordon Brown fan in any way, but facts are facts - unlike the lies of Cameron and his pals!! ourcoalition
  • Score: 3

9:52pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Richada says...

wexler53 wrote:
Cue the greens making it an even bigger mess of running our services with our money and blaming it on not getting their ridiculous rise through.

The madness, albeit slightly curtailed rolls on.

For goodness sake KitKat, go now - why wait for the inevitable? We've had enough of you and your so called party.
The more of this that I witness, the more I blame the other parties - through their hatred of each other - for allowing the Greens to have caused the chaos in this city. The Greens after all do not have a majority on the council and appear to have been largely propped up by the Tories who know that it enrages the Labour group.

Nobody comes out of this with any honour at all and we, the residents and council tax payers, having been sh@fted by the current administration have one VERY difficult decision on our hands deciding who to vote for come the next council elections.

The least worst scanario would appear to be a council made up entirely of independant councillors - the current system merely ensures that national party politics will out over the interests of those who live in, and contribute to, the coffers of Brighton and Hove.
[quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: Cue the greens making it an even bigger mess of running our services with our money and blaming it on not getting their ridiculous rise through. The madness, albeit slightly curtailed rolls on. For goodness sake KitKat, go now - why wait for the inevitable? We've had enough of you and your so called party.[/p][/quote]The more of this that I witness, the more I blame the other parties - through their hatred of each other - for allowing the Greens to have caused the chaos in this city. The Greens after all do not have a majority on the council and appear to have been largely propped up by the Tories who know that it enrages the Labour group. Nobody comes out of this with any honour at all and we, the residents and council tax payers, having been sh@fted by the current administration have one VERY difficult decision on our hands deciding who to vote for come the next council elections. The least worst scanario would appear to be a council made up entirely of independant councillors - the current system merely ensures that national party politics will out over the interests of those who live in, and contribute to, the coffers of Brighton and Hove. Richada
  • Score: 5

9:54pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ania Green says...

JHunty wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
It's a real shame that some of the most vulnerable people in our city will suffer as a result of the reduced council tax increase.

All the Argus comments here that are pleased about the reduced increase will be the first people to complain when these vital services are not getting the cash injection they deserve.

Shame on all of you.
Sockpuppet or Jason's mrs?
I am not a Sockpuppet. I am a proud member of the Green Party.
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: It's a real shame that some of the most vulnerable people in our city will suffer as a result of the reduced council tax increase. All the Argus comments here that are pleased about the reduced increase will be the first people to complain when these vital services are not getting the cash injection they deserve. Shame on all of you.[/p][/quote]Sockpuppet or Jason's mrs?[/p][/quote]I am not a Sockpuppet. I am a proud member of the Green Party. Ania Green
  • Score: -21

9:56pm Wed 5 Mar 14

menton says...

Ania Green wrote:
It's a real shame that some of the most vulnerable people in our city will suffer as a result of the reduced council tax increase.

All the Argus comments here that are pleased about the reduced increase will be the first people to complain when these vital services are not getting the cash injection they deserve.

Shame on all of you.
If you feel that strongly, then why not make a hefty donation to the council instead of expecting the rest of us to share your views?
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: It's a real shame that some of the most vulnerable people in our city will suffer as a result of the reduced council tax increase. All the Argus comments here that are pleased about the reduced increase will be the first people to complain when these vital services are not getting the cash injection they deserve. Shame on all of you.[/p][/quote]If you feel that strongly, then why not make a hefty donation to the council instead of expecting the rest of us to share your views? menton
  • Score: 13

9:57pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Money which could have been spent on the vulnerable:
The vast overspend on clearing up after travellers because then Green Party opened the gates at wild park to let them in.
Money spent bringing sheep into the city.
Money spent on a light up bus time table for the wealthy residents of Preston park.
The money spent installing electric car charging points which are unused.
The money spent painting 20mph signs on pot holed roads.
The money spent installing signs on pavements telling people where they are despite there already being signs.
The money spent on painting a cycle lane which had already existed for a decade.
If anyone thinks this Green council cares about the vulnerable, then you have your priorities wrong.
They only care about their own ideology.
I will pay the 1.99 per cent and I plough almost £100 a month into charities which support local vulnerable people then I can be reassured that the greens won't waste it on disgraceful vanity projects.
Money which could have been spent on the vulnerable: The vast overspend on clearing up after travellers because then Green Party opened the gates at wild park to let them in. Money spent bringing sheep into the city. Money spent on a light up bus time table for the wealthy residents of Preston park. The money spent installing electric car charging points which are unused. The money spent painting 20mph signs on pot holed roads. The money spent installing signs on pavements telling people where they are despite there already being signs. The money spent on painting a cycle lane which had already existed for a decade. If anyone thinks this Green council cares about the vulnerable, then you have your priorities wrong. They only care about their own ideology. I will pay the 1.99 per cent and I plough almost £100 a month into charities which support local vulnerable people then I can be reassured that the greens won't waste it on disgraceful vanity projects. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 8

9:58pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rolivan says...

ourcoalition wrote:
rolivan wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
No mention of the Debt Labour left?
You have fallen for the Con Dems propaganda - if Labour hadn't bailed out the Banks the country would be a basket case.

Ironic that it is only in the UK that Gordon Brown is blamed, whereas the rest of the world (friends and enemies) credit him as being the main leader who found a way through a near disaster.

I'm not a New Labour/Gordon Brown fan in any way, but facts are facts - unlike the lies of Cameron and his pals!!
How much was spent on Iraq and what did it achieve apart from the loss of Hundreds of Military Personnels lives?
[quote][p][bold]ourcoalition[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]No mention of the Debt Labour left?[/p][/quote]You have fallen for the Con Dems propaganda - if Labour hadn't bailed out the Banks the country would be a basket case. Ironic that it is only in the UK that Gordon Brown is blamed, whereas the rest of the world (friends and enemies) credit him as being the main leader who found a way through a near disaster. I'm not a New Labour/Gordon Brown fan in any way, but facts are facts - unlike the lies of Cameron and his pals!![/p][/quote]How much was spent on Iraq and what did it achieve apart from the loss of Hundreds of Military Personnels lives? rolivan
  • Score: -3

10:20pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Withdean-er says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Withdean-er wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
Embarrassingly blinkered, ill informed and party political 'view'.

In what form exactly was state money given to the bankers?

And didn't Brown, Blair, Moribund and Balls spend 13 rather cosy years in with those very same bankers? Socialists? No.

Taxation from working people is the same whether it's taken locally as council tax, or centrally by VAT, income tax and National Insurance .... and then redirected by Government to councils as it part used to be. In other words, working people would still have paid for it under the old system. Glad to see taxes in general being reined in as they hit working people, even if that's unpalatable to those who believe in greater and greater taxes to support ever more public sector jobs and grants.
I suggest you do some revision of recent history if you really can't remember what happened! To recap, the banks were bailed out with our money after their reserves turned out to be worthless IOUs (bonds) which they had been circulating amongst themselves and claiming to be worth billions. The banks were in effect nationalised by the Torys, just like Labour did in the 60s with industry. To rub salt in the wounds RBS have lost all the billions we gave them on top of what they already lost!
It's you that requires the history lesson, unbelievably, this was so recent.

After Brown, Blair, Moribund & Balls oversaw the explosion in public and personal debt, leaving the UK in a particularly awful position when the financial crisis hit, it was Brown and Balls who initiated and oversaw the issuing of government bonds by QE. And it wasn't real money as such, but the issue of paper bonds not backed by new and real reserves of our money, but simply a paper exercise to buy up bank debt.

Your knowledge also conveniently omits the critical period 1997 to 2008, when your friends in New Labour (personally wealthy capitalists), allowed 'soft touch' supervision to their friends in financial services including the banks. What a fatal mistake, and a generation or 2 of Brits are now paying the price.
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]Embarrassingly blinkered, ill informed and party political 'view'. In what form exactly was state money given to the bankers? And didn't Brown, Blair, Moribund and Balls spend 13 rather cosy years in with those very same bankers? Socialists? No. Taxation from working people is the same whether it's taken locally as council tax, or centrally by VAT, income tax and National Insurance .... and then redirected by Government to councils as it part used to be. In other words, working people would still have paid for it under the old system. Glad to see taxes in general being reined in as they hit working people, even if that's unpalatable to those who believe in greater and greater taxes to support ever more public sector jobs and grants.[/p][/quote]I suggest you do some revision of recent history if you really can't remember what happened! To recap, the banks were bailed out with our money after their reserves turned out to be worthless IOUs (bonds) which they had been circulating amongst themselves and claiming to be worth billions. The banks were in effect nationalised by the Torys, just like Labour did in the 60s with industry. To rub salt in the wounds RBS have lost all the billions we gave them on top of what they already lost![/p][/quote]It's you that requires the history lesson, unbelievably, this was so recent. After Brown, Blair, Moribund & Balls oversaw the explosion in public and personal debt, leaving the UK in a particularly awful position when the financial crisis hit, it was Brown and Balls who initiated and oversaw the issuing of government bonds by QE. And it wasn't real money as such, but the issue of paper bonds not backed by new and real reserves of our money, but simply a paper exercise to buy up bank debt. Your knowledge also conveniently omits the critical period 1997 to 2008, when your friends in New Labour (personally wealthy capitalists), allowed 'soft touch' supervision to their friends in financial services including the banks. What a fatal mistake, and a generation or 2 of Brits are now paying the price. Withdean-er
  • Score: 4

10:27pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Nobleox says...

BlackRocker wrote:
PPS: I don't know about the rest of you, but I can never quite take seriously the opinion of someone who hasn't mastered basic English spelling.
Who cares?
[quote][p][bold]BlackRocker[/bold] wrote: PPS: I don't know about the rest of you, but I can never quite take seriously the opinion of someone who hasn't mastered basic English spelling.[/p][/quote]Who cares? Nobleox
  • Score: -4

10:28pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Tivolian says...

The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..
The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee.. Tivolian
  • Score: 5

10:39pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Eugenius says...

Tivolian wrote:
The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..
Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)
[quote][p][bold]Tivolian[/bold] wrote: The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..[/p][/quote]Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year) Eugenius
  • Score: -7

10:44pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
Tivolian wrote:
The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..
Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)
So where is the other £5m being spent?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tivolian[/bold] wrote: The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..[/p][/quote]Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)[/p][/quote]So where is the other £5m being spent? rolivan
  • Score: 5

10:54pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Eugenius says...

rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Tivolian wrote:
The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..
Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)
So where is the other £5m being spent?
£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance)
£1.2m on subsidised bus routes
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tivolian[/bold] wrote: The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..[/p][/quote]Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)[/p][/quote]So where is the other £5m being spent?[/p][/quote]£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance) £1.2m on subsidised bus routes Eugenius
  • Score: -2

10:57pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Tivolian wrote:
The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..
Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)
So where is the other £5m being spent?
£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance)
£1.2m on subsidised bus routes
I thought that was Paid for by The Highways Dept
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tivolian[/bold] wrote: The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..[/p][/quote]Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)[/p][/quote]So where is the other £5m being spent?[/p][/quote]£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance) £1.2m on subsidised bus routes[/p][/quote]I thought that was Paid for by The Highways Dept rolivan
  • Score: 3

11:00pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rolivan says...

rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Tivolian wrote:
The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..
Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)
So where is the other £5m being spent?
£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance)
£1.2m on subsidised bus routes
I thought that was Paid for by The Highways Dept
Maybe it goes to make up the difference between the Grants and what it actually costs to snarl up Lewes Rd and The 7 Dials
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tivolian[/bold] wrote: The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..[/p][/quote]Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)[/p][/quote]So where is the other £5m being spent?[/p][/quote]£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance) £1.2m on subsidised bus routes[/p][/quote]I thought that was Paid for by The Highways Dept[/p][/quote]Maybe it goes to make up the difference between the Grants and what it actually costs to snarl up Lewes Rd and The 7 Dials rolivan
  • Score: 4

11:01pm Wed 5 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Tivolian wrote:
The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..
Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)
So where is the other £5m being spent?
£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance)
£1.2m on subsidised bus routes
I thought that was Paid for by The Highways Dept
3.1 million on road maintenance ,your have a laugh ,have you seen the pot holes ,the roads in this city are as bad as any in the third world
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tivolian[/bold] wrote: The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..[/p][/quote]Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)[/p][/quote]So where is the other £5m being spent?[/p][/quote]£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance) £1.2m on subsidised bus routes[/p][/quote]I thought that was Paid for by The Highways Dept[/p][/quote]3.1 million on road maintenance ,your have a laugh ,have you seen the pot holes ,the roads in this city are as bad as any in the third world whatevernext2013
  • Score: 6

11:04pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Warren Morgan says...

theidiotsarewinning.
..
wrote:
I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do.
The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing.
They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides.
Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave.
This is what having an ideal is.
This is honourable.
This is integrity.

Que the trolls...
The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus?

The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants.

The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.
[quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do. The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing. They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides. Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave. This is what having an ideal is. This is honourable. This is integrity. Que the trolls...[/p][/quote]The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus? The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants. The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 1

11:06pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Eugenius says...

rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Tivolian wrote:
The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..
Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)
So where is the other £5m being spent?
£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance)
£1.2m on subsidised bus routes
I thought that was Paid for by The Highways Dept
Nah, they only deal with motorways and A roads.

Maybe they used to but Westminster has been slyly passing the costs of more and more services to local government at the same time as cutting grant funding. It's a political trick to keep income tax down.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tivolian[/bold] wrote: The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..[/p][/quote]Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)[/p][/quote]So where is the other £5m being spent?[/p][/quote]£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance) £1.2m on subsidised bus routes[/p][/quote]I thought that was Paid for by The Highways Dept[/p][/quote]Nah, they only deal with motorways and A roads. Maybe they used to but Westminster has been slyly passing the costs of more and more services to local government at the same time as cutting grant funding. It's a political trick to keep income tax down. Eugenius
  • Score: 1

11:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do.
The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing.
They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides.
Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave.
This is what having an ideal is.
This is honourable.
This is integrity.

Que the trolls...
The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus?

The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants.

The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.
What is the latest on the i360 Mr Morgan? You said you would be asking Today at the Meeting
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do. The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing. They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides. Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave. This is what having an ideal is. This is honourable. This is integrity. Que the trolls...[/p][/quote]The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus? The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants. The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.[/p][/quote]What is the latest on the i360 Mr Morgan? You said you would be asking Today at the Meeting rolivan
  • Score: 2

11:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

but not one mention of the huge rent rise for council tenants ,those lucky enough to have a job have got no were near a 5% pay rise and those on benefits wont have to pay it ,so another kicking for the low paid in brighton
but not one mention of the huge rent rise for council tenants ,those lucky enough to have a job have got no were near a 5% pay rise and those on benefits wont have to pay it ,so another kicking for the low paid in brighton whatevernext2013
  • Score: 3

11:14pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Tivolian wrote:
The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..
Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)
So where is the other £5m being spent?
£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance)
£1.2m on subsidised bus routes
I thought that was Paid for by The Highways Dept
Nah, they only deal with motorways and A roads.

Maybe they used to but Westminster has been slyly passing the costs of more and more services to local government at the same time as cutting grant funding. It's a political trick to keep income tax down.
Well the Lewes Rd is the A270 isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tivolian[/bold] wrote: The council can afford to limit council tax rises as it can now make up the money from fleecing residents with the "Parking Zones" scam. They vote for these cash cows even if a majority of residents don't want them. Thanks a lot Transport Committee..[/p][/quote]Not true, Parking Zones are costed to be self-funding and any surplus would only go to covering the cost of pensioner and disabled bus passes which the council now has to cover (£10m per year)[/p][/quote]So where is the other £5m being spent?[/p][/quote]£3.1m on capital investment (road maintenance) £1.2m on subsidised bus routes[/p][/quote]I thought that was Paid for by The Highways Dept[/p][/quote]Nah, they only deal with motorways and A roads. Maybe they used to but Westminster has been slyly passing the costs of more and more services to local government at the same time as cutting grant funding. It's a political trick to keep income tax down.[/p][/quote]Well the Lewes Rd is the A270 isn't it? rolivan
  • Score: 1

11:15pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Eugenius says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do.
The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing.
They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides.
Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave.
This is what having an ideal is.
This is honourable.
This is integrity.

Que the trolls...
The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus?

The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants.

The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.
You didn't have to decide within 30 minutes of the referendum announcement, you could have consulted your group first.

The difference between Labour and Green proposals was 38 pence a week for band A, rising to 68 pence a week for band D.

Agree that times are hard and we shouldn't trivialise any tax rise but this was designed to be affordable. We should have had a joint Green/Labour campaign to make the case for investment in public services to catch up with inflation and stave off damaging austerity cuts.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do. The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing. They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides. Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave. This is what having an ideal is. This is honourable. This is integrity. Que the trolls...[/p][/quote]The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus? The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants. The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.[/p][/quote]You didn't have to decide within 30 minutes of the referendum announcement, you could have consulted your group first. The difference between Labour and Green proposals was 38 pence a week for band A, rising to 68 pence a week for band D. Agree that times are hard and we shouldn't trivialise any tax rise but this was designed to be affordable. We should have had a joint Green/Labour campaign to make the case for investment in public services to catch up with inflation and stave off damaging austerity cuts. Eugenius
  • Score: 2

11:17pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

I hope that the organisers of Pride will have a bit of Pride and request that the £15,000 they were awarded tonight towards the cost of their annual party be redirected to a council service instead.

Jobs are being lost and services cut and Pride are a commercial company. Cllr Bowden - gay and a former Pride official - asked that there not be a grant to them because they are a commercial company and to put the money to coucil use. The Tories and Labour decided to court pink votes last Thursday and voted it into place.

It was reduced to £15,000 tonight in final budget horsetrading. It is scandalous to give people that kind of money to throw a party over and above providing use of park space for it.

I'd like to think the city's LGBT residents would prefer to have bins emptied, etc more than that £15,000 contribution to Pride throwing a party.

Remember that Labour & Tories wanted to bestow this largesse when the council can't afford it. And the Greens had to back the reduced sum tonight as part of getting a budget finalised.
I hope that the organisers of Pride will have a bit of Pride and request that the £15,000 they were awarded tonight towards the cost of their annual party be redirected to a council service instead. Jobs are being lost and services cut and Pride are a commercial company. Cllr Bowden - gay and a former Pride official - asked that there not be a grant to them because they are a commercial company and to put the money to coucil use. The Tories and Labour decided to court pink votes last Thursday and voted it into place. It was reduced to £15,000 tonight in final budget horsetrading. It is scandalous to give people that kind of money to throw a party over and above providing use of park space for it. I'd like to think the city's LGBT residents would prefer to have bins emptied, etc more than that £15,000 contribution to Pride throwing a party. Remember that Labour & Tories wanted to bestow this largesse when the council can't afford it. And the Greens had to back the reduced sum tonight as part of getting a budget finalised. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 1

11:54pm Wed 5 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do.
The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing.
They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides.
Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave.
This is what having an ideal is.
This is honourable.
This is integrity.

Que the trolls...
The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus?

The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants.

The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.
I think they always knew the referendum would never happen. I think they wanted to show people that a choice existed, where people could show they cared in spite of their own hardship, to be charitable as is the British way.
A choice to not vote with your wallet, but with your heart.
It wasn't forced, it wasn't imposed, it was offered in the knowledge that it was a fait accompli that the other parties could and would block it…
But still, a different idea, a different approach - posing stark choices...
And the Greens then got the feedback - i.e the understandable groan from tax payers already heavily burdened, the agreement of some people, a debate, AND then there was the hand rubbing glee of the other politicians such as yourself Mr Morgan at the prospect of easy prey whilst looking so righteous you all almost had halos. Like hyenas you all circled taking bites out of the Greens. You and the Tories claiming to be 'doing it all for the poor who can't pay their bills' how sweet - oh pleeease! When really you are just making political capital from an easy victim. Awful. Really is everything I dislike about politicians right there!
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do. The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing. They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides. Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave. This is what having an ideal is. This is honourable. This is integrity. Que the trolls...[/p][/quote]The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus? The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants. The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.[/p][/quote]I think they always knew the referendum would never happen. I think they wanted to show people that a choice existed, where people could show they cared in spite of their own hardship, to be charitable as is the British way. A choice to not vote with your wallet, but with your heart. It wasn't forced, it wasn't imposed, it was offered in the knowledge that it was a fait accompli that the other parties could and would block it… But still, a different idea, a different approach - posing stark choices... And the Greens then got the feedback - i.e the understandable groan from tax payers already heavily burdened, the agreement of some people, a debate, AND then there was the hand rubbing glee of the other politicians such as yourself Mr Morgan at the prospect of easy prey whilst looking so righteous you all almost had halos. Like hyenas you all circled taking bites out of the Greens. You and the Tories claiming to be 'doing it all for the poor who can't pay their bills' how sweet - oh pleeease! When really you are just making political capital from an easy victim. Awful. Really is everything I dislike about politicians right there! theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 0

12:34am Thu 6 Mar 14

Ania Green says...

Good to see plenty of support on here today for the Greens.

I'm glad that not everyone is so blinkered that they can't see that the extra revenue raised by a higher council tax increase would have benefitted the city greatly.
Good to see plenty of support on here today for the Greens. I'm glad that not everyone is so blinkered that they can't see that the extra revenue raised by a higher council tax increase would have benefitted the city greatly. Ania Green
  • Score: -9

1:29am Thu 6 Mar 14

Warren Labour says...

Good to see plenty of support on here today for the Labour.

I'm glad that not everyone is so unselfish that they can't see that the extra 30p a week has benefitted them greatly and will solve the cost of living crisis.
Good to see plenty of support on here today for the Labour. I'm glad that not everyone is so unselfish that they can't see that the extra 30p a week has benefitted them greatly and will solve the cost of living crisis. Warren Labour
  • Score: -5

6:01am Thu 6 Mar 14

JHunty says...

Ania Green wrote:
Good to see plenty of support on here today for the Greens.

I'm glad that not everyone is so blinkered that they can't see that the extra revenue raised by a higher council tax increase would have benefitted the city greatly.
Any chance of some photos Ania?
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: Good to see plenty of support on here today for the Greens. I'm glad that not everyone is so blinkered that they can't see that the extra revenue raised by a higher council tax increase would have benefitted the city greatly.[/p][/quote]Any chance of some photos Ania? JHunty
  • Score: 3

7:12am Thu 6 Mar 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Were this wretched green council not wasting our money on ridiculous scenes and travelers clean ups then perhaps a rise could have been avoided

Wretched greens
Were this wretched green council not wasting our money on ridiculous scenes and travelers clean ups then perhaps a rise could have been avoided Wretched greens Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 6

7:24am Thu 6 Mar 14

Plantpot says...

theidiotsarewinning.
..
wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.


..
wrote:
I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do.
The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing.
They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides.
Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave.
This is what having an ideal is.
This is honourable.
This is integrity.

Que the trolls...
The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus?

The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants.

The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.
I think they always knew the referendum would never happen. I think they wanted to show people that a choice existed, where people could show they cared in spite of their own hardship, to be charitable as is the British way.
A choice to not vote with your wallet, but with your heart.
It wasn't forced, it wasn't imposed, it was offered in the knowledge that it was a fait accompli that the other parties could and would block it…
But still, a different idea, a different approach - posing stark choices...
And the Greens then got the feedback - i.e the understandable groan from tax payers already heavily burdened, the agreement of some people, a debate, AND then there was the hand rubbing glee of the other politicians such as yourself Mr Morgan at the prospect of easy prey whilst looking so righteous you all almost had halos. Like hyenas you all circled taking bites out of the Greens. You and the Tories claiming to be 'doing it all for the poor who can't pay their bills' how sweet - oh pleeease! When really you are just making political capital from an easy victim. Awful. Really is everything I dislike about politicians right there!
Council tax rates are set as a minimum. If people feel so strongly about things, they can pay extra into the council. But they won't. You always find out what something is worth when people have to put their hands in their pockets.
[quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do. The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing. They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides. Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave. This is what having an ideal is. This is honourable. This is integrity. Que the trolls...[/p][/quote]The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus? The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants. The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.[/p][/quote]I think they always knew the referendum would never happen. I think they wanted to show people that a choice existed, where people could show they cared in spite of their own hardship, to be charitable as is the British way. A choice to not vote with your wallet, but with your heart. It wasn't forced, it wasn't imposed, it was offered in the knowledge that it was a fait accompli that the other parties could and would block it… But still, a different idea, a different approach - posing stark choices... And the Greens then got the feedback - i.e the understandable groan from tax payers already heavily burdened, the agreement of some people, a debate, AND then there was the hand rubbing glee of the other politicians such as yourself Mr Morgan at the prospect of easy prey whilst looking so righteous you all almost had halos. Like hyenas you all circled taking bites out of the Greens. You and the Tories claiming to be 'doing it all for the poor who can't pay their bills' how sweet - oh pleeease! When really you are just making political capital from an easy victim. Awful. Really is everything I dislike about politicians right there![/p][/quote]Council tax rates are set as a minimum. If people feel so strongly about things, they can pay extra into the council. But they won't. You always find out what something is worth when people have to put their hands in their pockets. Plantpot
  • Score: -1

7:25am Thu 6 Mar 14

Plantpot says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
I hope that the organisers of Pride will have a bit of Pride and request that the £15,000 they were awarded tonight towards the cost of their annual party be redirected to a council service instead.

Jobs are being lost and services cut and Pride are a commercial company. Cllr Bowden - gay and a former Pride official - asked that there not be a grant to them because they are a commercial company and to put the money to coucil use. The Tories and Labour decided to court pink votes last Thursday and voted it into place.

It was reduced to £15,000 tonight in final budget horsetrading. It is scandalous to give people that kind of money to throw a party over and above providing use of park space for it.

I'd like to think the city's LGBT residents would prefer to have bins emptied, etc more than that £15,000 contribution to Pride throwing a party.

Remember that Labour & Tories wanted to bestow this largesse when the council can't afford it. And the Greens had to back the reduced sum tonight as part of getting a budget finalised.
Looking back, the council should never have given millions of ££'s worth of land FOC to the soccer co.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: I hope that the organisers of Pride will have a bit of Pride and request that the £15,000 they were awarded tonight towards the cost of their annual party be redirected to a council service instead. Jobs are being lost and services cut and Pride are a commercial company. Cllr Bowden - gay and a former Pride official - asked that there not be a grant to them because they are a commercial company and to put the money to coucil use. The Tories and Labour decided to court pink votes last Thursday and voted it into place. It was reduced to £15,000 tonight in final budget horsetrading. It is scandalous to give people that kind of money to throw a party over and above providing use of park space for it. I'd like to think the city's LGBT residents would prefer to have bins emptied, etc more than that £15,000 contribution to Pride throwing a party. Remember that Labour & Tories wanted to bestow this largesse when the council can't afford it. And the Greens had to back the reduced sum tonight as part of getting a budget finalised.[/p][/quote]Looking back, the council should never have given millions of ££'s worth of land FOC to the soccer co. Plantpot
  • Score: 1

7:31am Thu 6 Mar 14

Plantpot says...

her professional wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
rolivan wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
No mention of the Debt Labour left?
Let's say for argument's sake that the debt was all Labour's fault. After all they were in charge when the bankers lost all our money. But it was Cameron's job to sort it out. Tory policy is usually to let failing industry die (Coal, Steel, Ship Building) rather than bail it out. Strangely bankers were the exception and needed to be saved. Why is that? Could Cameron and co being their Old Etonian chums have anything to do with it? Yes, I think it could.
Quite right. And don't forget they look after their landowner farmer mates as well, plenty of subsidy for them.
If people are asking why not letting banks die is a problem, they probably don't understand economics. And of course Cameron is sorting things out. All economic indicators are on the rise, and we are doing better than our European neighbours, despite the socialists claiming austerity is the road to ruin.

I can't even be bothered to comment on the class stuff it's so puerile.
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]No mention of the Debt Labour left?[/p][/quote]Let's say for argument's sake that the debt was all Labour's fault. After all they were in charge when the bankers lost all our money. But it was Cameron's job to sort it out. Tory policy is usually to let failing industry die (Coal, Steel, Ship Building) rather than bail it out. Strangely bankers were the exception and needed to be saved. Why is that? Could Cameron and co being their Old Etonian chums have anything to do with it? Yes, I think it could.[/p][/quote]Quite right. And don't forget they look after their landowner farmer mates as well, plenty of subsidy for them.[/p][/quote]If people are asking why not letting banks die is a problem, they probably don't understand economics. And of course Cameron is sorting things out. All economic indicators are on the rise, and we are doing better than our European neighbours, despite the socialists claiming austerity is the road to ruin. I can't even be bothered to comment on the class stuff it's so puerile. Plantpot
  • Score: 1

2:01pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

Ania Green wrote:
JHunty wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
It's a real shame that some of the most vulnerable people in our city will suffer as a result of the reduced council tax increase.

All the Argus comments here that are pleased about the reduced increase will be the first people to complain when these vital services are not getting the cash injection they deserve.

Shame on all of you.
Sockpuppet or Jason's mrs?
I am not a Sockpuppet. I am a proud member of the Green Party.
Mrs Kitcat or troll then?
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: It's a real shame that some of the most vulnerable people in our city will suffer as a result of the reduced council tax increase. All the Argus comments here that are pleased about the reduced increase will be the first people to complain when these vital services are not getting the cash injection they deserve. Shame on all of you.[/p][/quote]Sockpuppet or Jason's mrs?[/p][/quote]I am not a Sockpuppet. I am a proud member of the Green Party.[/p][/quote]Mrs Kitcat or troll then? Richada
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do.
The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing.
They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides.
Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave.
This is what having an ideal is.
This is honourable.
This is integrity.

Que the trolls...
The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus?

The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants.

The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.
.....which earned them very few brownie points with anyone.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that the Greens mean well, and have the good of the community in mind in what they do. The idea of asking the community to pay a bit extra to help the vulnerable shows a belief in human nature, in personal sacrifice for the good of others even less fortunate than yourself, that is quite endearing. They have put their political necks on the line by pushing for a referendum, knowing the flak they would get from all sides. Many might call it foolish, yet to me its brave. This is what having an ideal is. This is honourable. This is integrity. Que the trolls...[/p][/quote]The problem is that many people - even some in work - can't afford a rise on top of everything else (fuel bills etc). For someone struggling with debt, a "brave" move like this could be the final straw. If it was an "honourable" attempt to tackle the cuts rather than a political manoeuvre, why was it presented to the media first rather than discussed with opposition councillors to try and build a consensus? The referendum on the larger rise would have failed, leaving us back at the 2% increase but £900,000 worse off. We have ensured that money will now be spent on services and community grants. The Green knew their rise wouldn't get through - which is why they built in several million in contingency funding to the Budget to offset the cuts to social care - cuts they themselves put into the Budget in the first place. More proof that it was all a drawn out piece of political theatre.[/p][/quote].....which earned them very few brownie points with anyone. Richada
  • Score: 1

2:25pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

JHunty wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
Good to see plenty of support on here today for the Greens.

I'm glad that not everyone is so blinkered that they can't see that the extra revenue raised by a higher council tax increase would have benefitted the city greatly.
Any chance of some photos Ania?
What of? Uncollected rubbish, piles of un-recycled materials, potholes, a bicycle lane to nowhere perhaps?

Oh, you're after a picture of Ania?

Googling Ania Green will give you plenty of scope and some familiar faces even!
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: Good to see plenty of support on here today for the Greens. I'm glad that not everyone is so blinkered that they can't see that the extra revenue raised by a higher council tax increase would have benefitted the city greatly.[/p][/quote]Any chance of some photos Ania?[/p][/quote]What of? Uncollected rubbish, piles of un-recycled materials, potholes, a bicycle lane to nowhere perhaps? Oh, you're after a picture of Ania? Googling Ania Green will give you plenty of scope and some familiar faces even! Richada
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
No, you're wrong. It goes back to the financially incontinent Labour governments from 1997 to 2010. If Blair and brown had chosen financial responsibility there would have been no need for the current measures.

if your leftie mates get back in either nationally or locally we will have another round of spending money we haven't got and be in even bigger trouble in a few years.
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]No, you're wrong. It goes back to the financially incontinent Labour governments from 1997 to 2010. If Blair and brown had chosen financial responsibility there would have been no need for the current measures. if your leftie mates get back in either nationally or locally we will have another round of spending money we haven't got and be in even bigger trouble in a few years. Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 3

11:03am Sun 9 Mar 14

Warren Morgan says...

Idontbelieveit1948 wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.
No, you're wrong. It goes back to the financially incontinent Labour governments from 1997 to 2010. If Blair and brown had chosen financial responsibility there would have been no need for the current measures.

if your leftie mates get back in either nationally or locally we will have another round of spending money we haven't got and be in even bigger trouble in a few years.
I think you will find you are wrong. This graph from the BBC in 2007 shows that the UK had had ten years of uninterrupted growth under Labour. It was only the global financial crash that ended it - not the myth of Labour over-spending, which of course the Tories committed to continue in 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/shared/spl/hi/po
p_ups/07/business_br
own0s_britain/html/1
.stm
Here's the Tory promise to match Labour spending: http://conservativeh
ome.blogs.com/torydi
ary/2007/09/tories-w
ill-mat.html
[quote][p][bold]Idontbelieveit1948[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Much as I dislike The Greens, don't forget that this mess is the result of The Tory Party in Whitehall stealing money from local taxation to give to their parasitical mates in big banking. This raise will still mean that there is not enough money to pay for local services for the disabled and/or elderly. They will suffer whilst Cameron's mates in The City spend the money on undeserved bonuses - sorry "allowances" - or just lose the lot all over again as RBS have just admitted.[/p][/quote]No, you're wrong. It goes back to the financially incontinent Labour governments from 1997 to 2010. If Blair and brown had chosen financial responsibility there would have been no need for the current measures. if your leftie mates get back in either nationally or locally we will have another round of spending money we haven't got and be in even bigger trouble in a few years.[/p][/quote]I think you will find you are wrong. This graph from the BBC in 2007 shows that the UK had had ten years of uninterrupted growth under Labour. It was only the global financial crash that ended it - not the myth of Labour over-spending, which of course the Tories committed to continue in 2007. http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/shared/spl/hi/po p_ups/07/business_br own0s_britain/html/1 .stm Here's the Tory promise to match Labour spending: http://conservativeh ome.blogs.com/torydi ary/2007/09/tories-w ill-mat.html Warren Morgan
  • Score: -1

2:15pm Tue 11 Mar 14

DisillusionedBtowner says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
I hope that the organisers of Pride will have a bit of Pride and request that the £15,000 they were awarded tonight towards the cost of their annual party be redirected to a council service instead. Jobs are being lost and services cut and Pride are a commercial company. Cllr Bowden - gay and a former Pride official - asked that there not be a grant to them because they are a commercial company and to put the money to coucil use. The Tories and Labour decided to court pink votes last Thursday and voted it into place. It was reduced to £15,000 tonight in final budget horsetrading. It is scandalous to give people that kind of money to throw a party over and above providing use of park space for it. I'd like to think the city's LGBT residents would prefer to have bins emptied, etc more than that £15,000 contribution to Pride throwing a party. Remember that Labour & Tories wanted to bestow this largesse when the council can't afford it. And the Greens had to back the reduced sum tonight as part of getting a budget finalised.
Completely agree with you here. Pride has become a parody of itself that just turns Brighton into a terrifying place for residents with all the street drinking, not the mention the clean up after.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: I hope that the organisers of Pride will have a bit of Pride and request that the £15,000 they were awarded tonight towards the cost of their annual party be redirected to a council service instead. Jobs are being lost and services cut and Pride are a commercial company. Cllr Bowden - gay and a former Pride official - asked that there not be a grant to them because they are a commercial company and to put the money to coucil use. The Tories and Labour decided to court pink votes last Thursday and voted it into place. It was reduced to £15,000 tonight in final budget horsetrading. It is scandalous to give people that kind of money to throw a party over and above providing use of park space for it. I'd like to think the city's LGBT residents would prefer to have bins emptied, etc more than that £15,000 contribution to Pride throwing a party. Remember that Labour & Tories wanted to bestow this largesse when the council can't afford it. And the Greens had to back the reduced sum tonight as part of getting a budget finalised.[/p][/quote]Completely agree with you here. Pride has become a parody of itself that just turns Brighton into a terrifying place for residents with all the street drinking, not the mention the clean up after. DisillusionedBtowner
  • Score: 0

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