The ArgusKitcat’s 5.9% council tax rise: full story (From The Argus)

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

Kitcat’s 5.9% council tax rise: full story

The Argus: Kitcat’s 5.9% council tax rise: full story Kitcat’s 5.9% council tax rise: full story

Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Council leader Jason Kitcat said the rise is necessary because the council is facing an “unprecedented position” with the worst year of Government cuts set to push the council to “breaking point”.

But opposition councillors have questioned the need and public appetite for such a rise and appear set to block the move.

The proposed rise is above the Government’s 1.99% threshold and would have to be agreed by a public referendum to be held on the same day as elections next May.

The Green party’s proposal for a 4.75% increase at this year’s budget was rejected by opposition councillors and a 1.99% compromise was eventually reached.

Conservative leader Geoffrey Theobald said the Greens had not learnt from the “fiasco” of this year’s budget and the council could still make savings without cutting services.

A similar stalemate now seems inevitable with all three parties differing on the financial way forward.

Green councillors said that combined Government cuts of £18 million and growing pressure on services means the council faces a budget shortfall of up to £25 million in 2015/16.

The figure is more than the council currently spends on libraries, homelessness, parks, youth services, sports facilities and development and environmental health combined.

They warn that the shortfall will rise to almost £70 million by 2019/20 – almost a tenth of the council’s entire annual budget.

The 5.9% increase is projected to bring in an extra £6 million and would see band D householders paying an £1.48 extra per week.

Coun Kitcat said: “This coming year we face the biggest cuts to the council budget so far in this Government’s relentless austerity programme.

“We are committed to delivering essential public services for our citizens but to do this we do need to raise council tax to ensure those services can keep going as demand continues to grow while budgets shrink.”

Labour leader Warren Morgan said: “Our position will remain the same, we do not believe that the financial impact of millions of pounds in cuts to local services by the Conservative-led Government should be passed on to residents by the Green-led council.

“We are doing all we can through measures like our Fairness Commission to help residents who are falling increasingly into debt and poverty, we will not let the Greens push them further down that route with massive tax increases.”

Coun Theobald said there was “no need” for such a rise.

He said: “Last year’s Budget was actually underspent by over £1 million and independent auditors and peer reviewers have both said that there is plenty more scope for making savings without having to cut services.

“I appeal to the Labour Group to join with us in blocking this ridiculously large rise.”

Comments (88)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:13am Fri 4 Jul 14

We love Red Billy says...

Kitty, kitty, kitty,out, out,out. Keep digging Jace.:)
Kitty, kitty, kitty,out, out,out. Keep digging Jace.:) We love Red Billy
  • Score: 58

6:58am Fri 4 Jul 14

leftysmellbags says...

Hi can the argus get a picture of Jason chucking a bag of puppies into a canal just to top off his downward spiral in popularity.
Hi can the argus get a picture of Jason chucking a bag of puppies into a canal just to top off his downward spiral in popularity. leftysmellbags
  • Score: 52

7:22am Fri 4 Jul 14

hoveguyactually says...

Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 108

7:23am Fri 4 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

Are the Greens really trying to commit political suicide at the moment ? Duncan and now this.
Are the Greens really trying to commit political suicide at the moment ? Duncan and now this. Fight_Back
  • Score: 72

7:44am Fri 4 Jul 14

hyram77 says...

I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh? hyram77
  • Score: -97

7:50am Fri 4 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.
[quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise. Fight_Back
  • Score: 96

8:27am Fri 4 Jul 14

nkwbtn says...

This green council has wasted so much money with poorly managed projects - no wonder there is a shortfall. Hang your head in shame Kitcat!
This green council has wasted so much money with poorly managed projects - no wonder there is a shortfall. Hang your head in shame Kitcat! nkwbtn
  • Score: 72

8:32am Fri 4 Jul 14

Quiterie says...

Whether the Greens feel a 5.9% Council Tax increase is justified or not, what is the point in proposing it?

It has zero chance of ever happening. The Tories and Labour will block the referendum that would be needed from even taking place.

Even if the referendum did take place, the 5.9% Council Tax increase would be defeated.

There is no point Councillors wasting time discussing that level of increase because it has no chance of happening. They would be better off spending their time discussing where the necessary savings should be made.

We all know what will happen. We'll end up with a "compromise" increase of 1.99% again. That is absolutely certain. Surely the Council have better things to do than prolonging a completely unnecessary and futile debate?
Whether the Greens feel a 5.9% Council Tax increase is justified or not, what is the point in proposing it? It has zero chance of ever happening. The Tories and Labour will block the referendum that would be needed from even taking place. Even if the referendum did take place, the 5.9% Council Tax increase would be defeated. There is no point Councillors wasting time discussing that level of increase because it has no chance of happening. They would be better off spending their time discussing where the necessary savings should be made. We all know what will happen. We'll end up with a "compromise" increase of 1.99% again. That is absolutely certain. Surely the Council have better things to do than prolonging a completely unnecessary and futile debate? Quiterie
  • Score: 42

8:34am Fri 4 Jul 14

Jim_Griff says...

And yet what the Greens are proposing is, historically, quite a low increase. 14% rise under labour anyone?
https://twitter.com/
laplandlongspur/stat
us/48495705106011750
4
And yet what the Greens are proposing is, historically, quite a low increase. 14% rise under labour anyone? https://twitter.com/ laplandlongspur/stat us/48495705106011750 4 Jim_Griff
  • Score: -20

8:44am Fri 4 Jul 14

hyram77 says...

Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.
A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.[/p][/quote]A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there. hyram77
  • Score: -85

8:44am Fri 4 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Mr Kitkat, you agreed to take part in an online chat with The Argus and it'sreaders about the traveller issue in the town.
You would have prepared for that interview yet you were unable to answer very simple questions about the traveller budget.
Either you were incompetent or lying about not having that information.
Why would the public now trust a man to talk about the whole budget when you were unable to manage details about one budget?
Mr Kitkat, you agreed to take part in an online chat with The Argus and it'sreaders about the traveller issue in the town. You would have prepared for that interview yet you were unable to answer very simple questions about the traveller budget. Either you were incompetent or lying about not having that information. Why would the public now trust a man to talk about the whole budget when you were unable to manage details about one budget? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 60

8:51am Fri 4 Jul 14

s&k says...

Well we need to pay more council tax to subsidise all the students who don't. Only joking.
Well we need to pay more council tax to subsidise all the students who don't. Only joking. s&k
  • Score: 22

8:55am Fri 4 Jul 14

wexler53 says...

“We are committed to delivering essential public services for our citizens...

Well ok, let's cost those using the most efficient methods available, in terms of service delivery and cost.

Then let's have a thorough independent audit of Council expenditure, reduce the bureaucracy, cut the cost of upgrading Hove Town Hall, maximise the price on King's House, get rid of half the councillors and their expenses, etc etc

The council is undoubtedly over resourced and over priced.

And get rid of KitKat and his zealot wastrels...and stop wasting time and money on silly things.
“We are committed to delivering essential public services for our citizens... Well ok, let's cost those using the most efficient methods available, in terms of service delivery and cost. Then let's have a thorough independent audit of Council expenditure, reduce the bureaucracy, cut the cost of upgrading Hove Town Hall, maximise the price on King's House, get rid of half the councillors and their expenses, etc etc The council is undoubtedly over resourced and over priced. And get rid of KitKat and his zealot wastrels...and stop wasting time and money on silly things. wexler53
  • Score: 51

9:02am Fri 4 Jul 14

gheese77 says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Traffic improvements are not funded out of council tax as you well know
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.[/p][/quote]Traffic improvements are not funded out of council tax as you well know gheese77
  • Score: -29

9:02am Fri 4 Jul 14

gazzamagoo says...

They might have saved some money by not introducing unnecessary and unwanted roadworks and regulations. Or is that too obvious?
They might have saved some money by not introducing unnecessary and unwanted roadworks and regulations. Or is that too obvious? gazzamagoo
  • Score: 29

9:20am Fri 4 Jul 14

s&k says...

Is this JK's parting shot? As I said in an earlier post, if B&HCC cut back spending on all their peripherals (communications, translations, catering, equalities, expenses, layers of senior management etc) and still need this rise to protect essential services then fair enough.
Is this JK's parting shot? As I said in an earlier post, if B&HCC cut back spending on all their peripherals (communications, translations, catering, equalities, expenses, layers of senior management etc) and still need this rise to protect essential services then fair enough. s&k
  • Score: 13

9:21am Fri 4 Jul 14

northernseagull says...

Just think of all the extra trees that have to be cut down to create the extra money to pay the Greens higher tax. Not to mention all the extra ballot papers required for the huge voter turnout to remove them at the next election.
Just think of all the extra trees that have to be cut down to create the extra money to pay the Greens higher tax. Not to mention all the extra ballot papers required for the huge voter turnout to remove them at the next election. northernseagull
  • Score: 22

9:29am Fri 4 Jul 14

Quiterie says...

Jim_Griff wrote:
And yet what the Greens are proposing is, historically, quite a low increase. 14% rise under labour anyone?
https://twitter.com/

laplandlongspur/stat

us/48495705106011750

4
Very good point. And very interesting table at that link showing historical Council Tax increase. We shouldn't forget the huge Council Tax increases under Labour when they were in power. And even the lower Tory increases when they were in power (around the 4% mark) were too high.

It still doesn't justify a 5.9% increase now though.

Labour and the Tories certainly don't come out of this smelling of roses though. If the Council have been able to find such huge 'efficiency savings' over the last few years to offset the reduction in funding from Central Govt, it just shows how inefficient the Council had become under Labour and the Tories.
[quote][p][bold]Jim_Griff[/bold] wrote: And yet what the Greens are proposing is, historically, quite a low increase. 14% rise under labour anyone? https://twitter.com/ laplandlongspur/stat us/48495705106011750 4[/p][/quote]Very good point. And very interesting table at that link showing historical Council Tax increase. We shouldn't forget the huge Council Tax increases under Labour when they were in power. And even the lower Tory increases when they were in power (around the 4% mark) were too high. It still doesn't justify a 5.9% increase now though. Labour and the Tories certainly don't come out of this smelling of roses though. If the Council have been able to find such huge 'efficiency savings' over the last few years to offset the reduction in funding from Central Govt, it just shows how inefficient the Council had become under Labour and the Tories. Quiterie
  • Score: 3

9:35am Fri 4 Jul 14

argchat says...

Pressure on services, lack on funding doesn't help but neither does over population, migration and that is the truth of it.
Pressure on services, lack on funding doesn't help but neither does over population, migration and that is the truth of it. argchat
  • Score: 19

9:35am Fri 4 Jul 14

NickBrt says...

I will gladly pay the extra tax provided it goes towards making it easier for Travellers to invade our parks all year round and pay for removing all the waste they kindly leave.
I will gladly pay the extra tax provided it goes towards making it easier for Travellers to invade our parks all year round and pay for removing all the waste they kindly leave. NickBrt
  • Score: 15

9:43am Fri 4 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

hyram77 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.
A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.
Because a bank is really likely to lend to a pensioner for example. The new lending rules will exclude a lot of people from remortgaging. As for equity release - absolute con and why should someone do that just because the council have got greedy. These are peoples homes, not financial assets.
[quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.[/p][/quote]A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.[/p][/quote]Because a bank is really likely to lend to a pensioner for example. The new lending rules will exclude a lot of people from remortgaging. As for equity release - absolute con and why should someone do that just because the council have got greedy. These are peoples homes, not financial assets. Fight_Back
  • Score: 37

9:47am Fri 4 Jul 14

Max Ripple says...

s&k wrote:
Well we need to pay more council tax to subsidise all the students who don't. Only joking.
Don't joke. It's a serious matter. Students and their greedy landlords pay NOTHING. If the law says that students don't have to pay, then the shortfall which is about £5.5 million per year, should be made up by the landlords who are raking in upwards of £2000 per month on their squalid properties. And don't just argue that the cost would simply be passed on to the tenants - the council could state that the rent could not go up above its current rate when this measure is introduced. If it did go up then under the HMO licensing scheme the council could have the power to fine the landlord.
[quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote: Well we need to pay more council tax to subsidise all the students who don't. Only joking.[/p][/quote]Don't joke. It's a serious matter. Students and their greedy landlords pay NOTHING. If the law says that students don't have to pay, then the shortfall which is about £5.5 million per year, should be made up by the landlords who are raking in upwards of £2000 per month on their squalid properties. And don't just argue that the cost would simply be passed on to the tenants - the council could state that the rent could not go up above its current rate when this measure is introduced. If it did go up then under the HMO licensing scheme the council could have the power to fine the landlord. Max Ripple
  • Score: 33

9:47am Fri 4 Jul 14

Fercri Sakes says...

northernseagull wrote:
Just think of all the extra trees that have to be cut down to create the extra money to pay the Greens higher tax. Not to mention all the extra ballot papers required for the huge voter turnout to remove them at the next election.
Fun facts:

1. UK bank notes are not made from trees.

2. Even if this new higher rise does get accepted the average Brighton Council tax rise set by the Green Party is 1.7%. Under the Conservatives that figure was 3.7%, and under Labour it was a whopping 8.7%.
[quote][p][bold]northernseagull[/bold] wrote: Just think of all the extra trees that have to be cut down to create the extra money to pay the Greens higher tax. Not to mention all the extra ballot papers required for the huge voter turnout to remove them at the next election.[/p][/quote]Fun facts: 1. UK bank notes are not made from trees. 2. Even if this new higher rise does get accepted the average Brighton Council tax rise set by the Green Party is 1.7%. Under the Conservatives that figure was 3.7%, and under Labour it was a whopping 8.7%. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 2

9:50am Fri 4 Jul 14

jmmr316 says...

so we vote for a council tax change which may prove irrelevant if the Greens get voted out (As the referendum will happen on election day) what a waste of time and money
so we vote for a council tax change which may prove irrelevant if the Greens get voted out (As the referendum will happen on election day) what a waste of time and money jmmr316
  • Score: 18

9:50am Fri 4 Jul 14

portugal35 says...

I WILL GLADLY PAY WHATEVER THE GREEN'S SAY AS THEY KNOW HOW TO SPEND MY HARD EARNED WAGES MORE THEN ME.
I WILL GLADLY PAY WHATEVER THE GREEN'S SAY AS THEY KNOW HOW TO SPEND MY HARD EARNED WAGES MORE THEN ME. portugal35
  • Score: -14

9:50am Fri 4 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.
But property has become a bit of a liquid asset for more than a few people these past few years. And then there are homeowners' expectations that they can gain capital without doing any work, which goes untaxed when you sell your home (if it's your Principal Private Residence). But then again, I also resent being asked to pay a bit more for some public servants who are going to be entitled to a decent pension anyway. Let's face it; capital is king nowadays; no increase in council tax has it about right. We all want good public services, but as no-one really wants to pay for them, let's get used to it.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.[/p][/quote]But property has become a bit of a liquid asset for more than a few people these past few years. And then there are homeowners' expectations that they can gain capital without doing any work, which goes untaxed when you sell your home (if it's your Principal Private Residence). But then again, I also resent being asked to pay a bit more for some public servants who are going to be entitled to a decent pension anyway. Let's face it; capital is king nowadays; no increase in council tax has it about right. We all want good public services, but as no-one really wants to pay for them, let's get used to it. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -20

9:53am Fri 4 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.
A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.
Because a bank is really likely to lend to a pensioner for example. The new lending rules will exclude a lot of people from remortgaging. As for equity release - absolute con and why should someone do that just because the council have got greedy. These are peoples homes, not financial assets.
Er, no. Culture has changed. Houses are now financial assets , and the streets are people's homes. Even the people that live in houses now think like this.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.[/p][/quote]A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.[/p][/quote]Because a bank is really likely to lend to a pensioner for example. The new lending rules will exclude a lot of people from remortgaging. As for equity release - absolute con and why should someone do that just because the council have got greedy. These are peoples homes, not financial assets.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Culture has changed. Houses are now financial assets , and the streets are people's homes. Even the people that live in houses now think like this. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -16

9:58am Fri 4 Jul 14

pjwilk says...

Lot of money for a Kit Kat.These Greens waste so much money on useless schemes.Of course all the Councillors need their inflated salaries expenses and super pensions paid for.They supposed to work for the well-being of the people and not use the people as cash cows.The way things are going everything will be dictated by the EU and we can get rid of all councillors and MPs . Otherwise make Councillors a voluntary position.There are hundreds of people who would do the job for expenses only mainly retired older people who have a real sense of values.Modern day Councillors are a Worthless bunch of snout in the trough idiots.
Lot of money for a Kit Kat.These Greens waste so much money on useless schemes.Of course all the Councillors need their inflated salaries expenses and super pensions paid for.They supposed to work for the well-being of the people and not use the people as cash cows.The way things are going everything will be dictated by the EU and we can get rid of all councillors and MPs . Otherwise make Councillors a voluntary position.There are hundreds of people who would do the job for expenses only mainly retired older people who have a real sense of values.Modern day Councillors are a Worthless bunch of snout in the trough idiots. pjwilk
  • Score: 12

10:06am Fri 4 Jul 14

ruberducker says...

Im not paying
we dont get the services we pay for:ask the council for a contract both parties to sign.you are charging me for what..what do you provide..and if you fail to provide i withdraw my side of the aggreament...
funny how council wont take it any further..they are in breach of contract
Im not paying we dont get the services we pay for:ask the council for a contract both parties to sign.you are charging me for what..what do you provide..and if you fail to provide i withdraw my side of the aggreament... funny how council wont take it any further..they are in breach of contract ruberducker
  • Score: 15

10:10am Fri 4 Jul 14

argchat says...

One of the most expensive Council Taxes in the UK, LDC is not much better either. It's a disgrace
One of the most expensive Council Taxes in the UK, LDC is not much better either. It's a disgrace argchat
  • Score: 10

10:26am Fri 4 Jul 14

peterthomas says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Good call hoveguyactually - the City is a mess and the traffic arrangements a total disgrace - witness Edward Street if you need to remind yourselves what empowering rank amateurs gets you!! Get rid of these hopeless clowns now!
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.[/p][/quote]Good call hoveguyactually - the City is a mess and the traffic arrangements a total disgrace - witness Edward Street if you need to remind yourselves what empowering rank amateurs gets you!! Get rid of these hopeless clowns now! peterthomas
  • Score: 11

10:26am Fri 4 Jul 14

yummie12 says...

From green to yellow. The captain's leaving the sinking ship and ensuring depletion of funds for his party's successors.
From green to yellow. The captain's leaving the sinking ship and ensuring depletion of funds for his party's successors. yummie12
  • Score: 9

10:26am Fri 4 Jul 14

J Hill says...

The Green Party is obviously a typo...it should read The Greed Party.
The Green Party is obviously a typo...it should read The Greed Party. J Hill
  • Score: 19

10:37am Fri 4 Jul 14

Fercri Sakes says...

This is a post with a bunch of correct facts. Please downvote.
This is a post with a bunch of correct facts. Please downvote. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 10

10:37am Fri 4 Jul 14

Fercri Sakes says...

This is a post with a bunch of false anti-Green rhetoric. Please upvote.
This is a post with a bunch of false anti-Green rhetoric. Please upvote. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -4

10:39am Fri 4 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Does Jason have a masochistic streak?

He seems to love being attacked for his comments.
Does Jason have a masochistic streak? He seems to love being attacked for his comments. stevo!!
  • Score: 2

10:40am Fri 4 Jul 14

MegA69 says...

Wasteful does not describe it. My eyes were really opened by recent experience with Planning Department - what an inefficient, wasteful, bureaucratic mob that is. Like dealing with a 1970s quango except they probably play computer games rather than sharpen pencils to pass the time.
Wasteful does not describe it. My eyes were really opened by recent experience with Planning Department - what an inefficient, wasteful, bureaucratic mob that is. Like dealing with a 1970s quango except they probably play computer games rather than sharpen pencils to pass the time. MegA69
  • Score: 18

10:41am Fri 4 Jul 14

tekniko says...

Stop wasting money on 20 MPH street art.
Stop wasting money on 20 MPH street art. tekniko
  • Score: 25

10:45am Fri 4 Jul 14

Fercri Sakes says...

yummie12 wrote:
From green to yellow. The captain's leaving the sinking ship and ensuring depletion of funds for his party's successors.
Hold on. I thought Kitkat wanted to raise Council Tax so that he could increase the council's funds?

As I said earlier in Brighton Labour averaged a 8.7% council tax rise, Conservatives averaged a 3.7% rise, and even if Kitkat gets his big rise the average Council Tax rise by the Greens would be 1.7%.

If Kitkat doesn't get his rise then the average increase by the Green party will be 1%. The lefty Marxist Communists with their 1% annual increases in Council Tax ;)
[quote][p][bold]yummie12[/bold] wrote: From green to yellow. The captain's leaving the sinking ship and ensuring depletion of funds for his party's successors.[/p][/quote]Hold on. I thought Kitkat wanted to raise Council Tax so that he could increase the council's funds? As I said earlier in Brighton Labour averaged a 8.7% council tax rise, Conservatives averaged a 3.7% rise, and even if Kitkat gets his big rise the average Council Tax rise by the Greens would be 1.7%. If Kitkat doesn't get his rise then the average increase by the Green party will be 1%. The lefty Marxist Communists with their 1% annual increases in Council Tax ;) Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -12

10:52am Fri 4 Jul 14

rolivan says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
This is a post with a bunch of correct facts. Please downvote.
Seeing as you like facts please could you tell us why the recycling rate has actually decreased whilst the Greens have been in Office.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: This is a post with a bunch of correct facts. Please downvote.[/p][/quote]Seeing as you like facts please could you tell us why the recycling rate has actually decreased whilst the Greens have been in Office. rolivan
  • Score: 23

10:59am Fri 4 Jul 14

argchat says...

Band D property under LDC is on average £1650 per year. I don't know what it is under Brighton, however nobody is getting value for money anywhere. All we have got for our troubles is a degrading of our services, due to lack of money from the government and overuse due to over population.
Band D property under LDC is on average £1650 per year. I don't know what it is under Brighton, however nobody is getting value for money anywhere. All we have got for our troubles is a degrading of our services, due to lack of money from the government and overuse due to over population. argchat
  • Score: -1

11:10am Fri 4 Jul 14

Man With No Name says...

hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
Two words - stamp duty. It's more painful than council tax, and council tax is supposed to be for services provided. Perhaps change council tax to be charge based on how many people live there, that seems much more fair to me.
[quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]Two words - stamp duty. It's more painful than council tax, and council tax is supposed to be for services provided. Perhaps change council tax to be charge based on how many people live there, that seems much more fair to me. Man With No Name
  • Score: -5

11:19am Fri 4 Jul 14

Tippy Toes says...

Man With No Name wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
Two words - stamp duty. It's more painful than council tax, and council tax is supposed to be for services provided. Perhaps change council tax to be charge based on how many people live there, that seems much more fair to me.
Like the Poll Tax. Which was widely criticised, but actually seems like the fairest way!
[quote][p][bold]Man With No Name[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]Two words - stamp duty. It's more painful than council tax, and council tax is supposed to be for services provided. Perhaps change council tax to be charge based on how many people live there, that seems much more fair to me.[/p][/quote]Like the Poll Tax. Which was widely criticised, but actually seems like the fairest way! Tippy Toes
  • Score: 13

11:24am Fri 4 Jul 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.
A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.
Because a bank is really likely to lend to a pensioner for example. The new lending rules will exclude a lot of people from remortgaging. As for equity release - absolute con and why should someone do that just because the council have got greedy. These are peoples homes, not financial assets.
Sorry to inform you this but people's houses are not considered their homes - they are a financial asset when you look at the elderly who need care. A lot of people are not aware of this.

Your home will be sold to pay for your care in a horrible old people's home and the care costs are extortionate, £700 per week is cheap and for that you get very little.

It's a rip off and our government is very aware of what is going on and does nothing about it. The care homes aren't even inspected very well and not very often and always with prior notice.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.[/p][/quote]A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.[/p][/quote]Because a bank is really likely to lend to a pensioner for example. The new lending rules will exclude a lot of people from remortgaging. As for equity release - absolute con and why should someone do that just because the council have got greedy. These are peoples homes, not financial assets.[/p][/quote]Sorry to inform you this but people's houses are not considered their homes - they are a financial asset when you look at the elderly who need care. A lot of people are not aware of this. Your home will be sold to pay for your care in a horrible old people's home and the care costs are extortionate, £700 per week is cheap and for that you get very little. It's a rip off and our government is very aware of what is going on and does nothing about it. The care homes aren't even inspected very well and not very often and always with prior notice. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 5

11:25am Fri 4 Jul 14

Warren Morgan says...

Quiterie wrote:
Whether the Greens feel a 5.9% Council Tax increase is justified or not, what is the point in proposing it?

It has zero chance of ever happening. The Tories and Labour will block the referendum that would be needed from even taking place.

Even if the referendum did take place, the 5.9% Council Tax increase would be defeated.

There is no point Councillors wasting time discussing that level of increase because it has no chance of happening. They would be better off spending their time discussing where the necessary savings should be made.

We all know what will happen. We'll end up with a "compromise" increase of 1.99% again. That is absolutely certain. Surely the Council have better things to do than prolonging a completely unnecessary and futile debate?
Because it plays well to Green voters, and they can then blame Labour for the cuts because we blocked their tax rise. We'd be better to spend the time reviewing services, making savings, maximising the council's income from business rates and focussing on basic services. With or without the tax increase their will have to be cuts, so we ought to get on with doing our best to ensure council services continue to run.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: Whether the Greens feel a 5.9% Council Tax increase is justified or not, what is the point in proposing it? It has zero chance of ever happening. The Tories and Labour will block the referendum that would be needed from even taking place. Even if the referendum did take place, the 5.9% Council Tax increase would be defeated. There is no point Councillors wasting time discussing that level of increase because it has no chance of happening. They would be better off spending their time discussing where the necessary savings should be made. We all know what will happen. We'll end up with a "compromise" increase of 1.99% again. That is absolutely certain. Surely the Council have better things to do than prolonging a completely unnecessary and futile debate?[/p][/quote]Because it plays well to Green voters, and they can then blame Labour for the cuts because we blocked their tax rise. We'd be better to spend the time reviewing services, making savings, maximising the council's income from business rates and focussing on basic services. With or without the tax increase their will have to be cuts, so we ought to get on with doing our best to ensure council services continue to run. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 13

11:31am Fri 4 Jul 14

Warren Morgan says...

pjwilk wrote:
Lot of money for a Kit Kat.These Greens waste so much money on useless schemes.Of course all the Councillors need their inflated salaries expenses and super pensions paid for.They supposed to work for the well-being of the people and not use the people as cash cows.The way things are going everything will be dictated by the EU and we can get rid of all councillors and MPs . Otherwise make Councillors a voluntary position.There are hundreds of people who would do the job for expenses only mainly retired older people who have a real sense of values.Modern day Councillors are a Worthless bunch of snout in the trough idiots.
I'm not complaining about what I get - it's a lot more than some people. £18k is a decent allowance (I don't have any other income) but sixteen cllrs get more than I do. I claim no expenses, I'll not be able to contribute to my pension after May as the Tories have stopped it. That's fine, but it is hardly placing me in the ranks of the super-rich as you imply.

No allowances and making it a voluntary position? Yes, then decisions get made by retired, wealthy landlords. Who's interests do you think they will serve?
[quote][p][bold]pjwilk[/bold] wrote: Lot of money for a Kit Kat.These Greens waste so much money on useless schemes.Of course all the Councillors need their inflated salaries expenses and super pensions paid for.They supposed to work for the well-being of the people and not use the people as cash cows.The way things are going everything will be dictated by the EU and we can get rid of all councillors and MPs . Otherwise make Councillors a voluntary position.There are hundreds of people who would do the job for expenses only mainly retired older people who have a real sense of values.Modern day Councillors are a Worthless bunch of snout in the trough idiots.[/p][/quote]I'm not complaining about what I get - it's a lot more than some people. £18k is a decent allowance (I don't have any other income) but sixteen cllrs get more than I do. I claim no expenses, I'll not be able to contribute to my pension after May as the Tories have stopped it. That's fine, but it is hardly placing me in the ranks of the super-rich as you imply. No allowances and making it a voluntary position? Yes, then decisions get made by retired, wealthy landlords. Who's interests do you think they will serve? Warren Morgan
  • Score: 11

11:41am Fri 4 Jul 14

cookie_brighton says...

£25million " funding shortfall " eh Jason............My advice to you is get the thousands of non-paying council taxpaying students.........to pay, after all it is the majority of these people who "LIVE " amongst us that cause the most problems, especially where household waste is concerned, they fly tip, settees, beds, mattresses, wardrobes, cupboards, washing machines, fridges and freezers at the side of communal refuce bins, on the pavement and the road, which has to be paid for by us, the council tax payer........to be removed. this would help, rather than having council tax payers pay anthing else..........centra
l Government have capped council tax increase at 2%
£25million " funding shortfall " eh Jason............My advice to you is get the thousands of non-paying council taxpaying students.........to pay, after all it is the majority of these people who "LIVE " amongst us that cause the most problems, especially where household waste is concerned, they fly tip, settees, beds, mattresses, wardrobes, cupboards, washing machines, fridges and freezers at the side of communal refuce bins, on the pavement and the road, which has to be paid for by us, the council tax payer........to be removed. this would help, rather than having council tax payers pay anthing else..........centra l Government have capped council tax increase at 2% cookie_brighton
  • Score: 16

12:43pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bsxking1 says...

I wonder if the people who vote for this party are the people who sit around all day in one of brightons many high end cafés spending our money they get from benefits which come from hard working peoples taxes, and if I'm correct if you don't work your council tax isn't as high so these people who vote for this party couldn't give a **** if it goes up or not.
I wonder if the people who vote for this party are the people who sit around all day in one of brightons many high end cafés spending our money they get from benefits which come from hard working peoples taxes, and if I'm correct if you don't work your council tax isn't as high so these people who vote for this party couldn't give a **** if it goes up or not. Bsxking1
  • Score: 13

12:55pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Ennuid says...

Who voted for these people, please make yourself known.
Who voted for these people, please make yourself known. Ennuid
  • Score: 9

12:56pm Fri 4 Jul 14

her professional says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS.
As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably).
Well said Jason for telling the truth.
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.[/p][/quote]Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS. As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably). Well said Jason for telling the truth. her professional
  • Score: -37

1:01pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

There are some councillors who claim allowances and work full time. They do very little in their wards and hide behind busy social media accounts to give the impression that they are active in local politics when they aren't.
Then you get ward councillors who don't work and dedicate their whole life to their communities.
These are the people you should vote for, those who delivery projects to improve their communities and those who listen and deal with residents issues.
Research before you vote.
There are some councillors who claim allowances and work full time. They do very little in their wards and hide behind busy social media accounts to give the impression that they are active in local politics when they aren't. Then you get ward councillors who don't work and dedicate their whole life to their communities. These are the people you should vote for, those who delivery projects to improve their communities and those who listen and deal with residents issues. Research before you vote. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 26

1:09pm Fri 4 Jul 14

We love Red Billy says...

H jars us very quiet.
H jars us very quiet. We love Red Billy
  • Score: 15

1:10pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Ennuid says...

her professional wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS.
As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably).
Well said Jason for telling the truth.
Going on about the health and other benefits of cycling is utterly bogus. The Old Shoreham Road cycle track has increased congestion and hardly anyone uses it. I dread to think how much it must have cost. Cycle paths where appropriate are indeed a good idea, think of the seafront for example and other places where they can be used to make cycling safer, but the green party in Brighton behaves as if anyone with a car is an enemy. And in terms of wasting money why is there a counting device on the London road as you come into Brighton that actually counts the number of cyclists who have gone by. Is that money well spent?!

The whole 20mph this is verging on the insane as well, no one pays any attention to it. Vanity projects are an extremely accurate description of what these things are.

I work in the private sector and would like to see some of the efficiencies that we have to deal with every day as a matter of course applied to the council. Jason Kitcat wouldn't know the truth if it punched him but he sure is good at spending other peoples money.
No doubt Mr Kitcat will add the whole thing to his cv and we will see him on a national stage before too long. God help the nation, but at least he wont be mucking up Brighton and Hove before too long.
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.[/p][/quote]Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS. As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably). Well said Jason for telling the truth.[/p][/quote]Going on about the health and other benefits of cycling is utterly bogus. The Old Shoreham Road cycle track has increased congestion and hardly anyone uses it. I dread to think how much it must have cost. Cycle paths where appropriate are indeed a good idea, think of the seafront for example and other places where they can be used to make cycling safer, but the green party in Brighton behaves as if anyone with a car is an enemy. And in terms of wasting money why is there a counting device on the London road as you come into Brighton that actually counts the number of cyclists who have gone by. Is that money well spent?! The whole 20mph this is verging on the insane as well, no one pays any attention to it. Vanity projects are an extremely accurate description of what these things are. I work in the private sector and would like to see some of the efficiencies that we have to deal with every day as a matter of course applied to the council. Jason Kitcat wouldn't know the truth if it punched him but he sure is good at spending other peoples money. No doubt Mr Kitcat will add the whole thing to his cv and we will see him on a national stage before too long. God help the nation, but at least he wont be mucking up Brighton and Hove before too long. Ennuid
  • Score: 19

1:28pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Quiterie says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
pjwilk wrote:
Lot of money for a Kit Kat.These Greens waste so much money on useless schemes.Of course all the Councillors need their inflated salaries expenses and super pensions paid for.They supposed to work for the well-being of the people and not use the people as cash cows.The way things are going everything will be dictated by the EU and we can get rid of all councillors and MPs . Otherwise make Councillors a voluntary position.There are hundreds of people who would do the job for expenses only mainly retired older people who have a real sense of values.Modern day Councillors are a Worthless bunch of snout in the trough idiots.
I'm not complaining about what I get - it's a lot more than some people. £18k is a decent allowance (I don't have any other income) but sixteen cllrs get more than I do. I claim no expenses, I'll not be able to contribute to my pension after May as the Tories have stopped it. That's fine, but it is hardly placing me in the ranks of the super-rich as you imply.

No allowances and making it a voluntary position? Yes, then decisions get made by retired, wealthy landlords. Who's interests do you think they will serve?
Warren's right. I don't agree with everything he says, but Councillors certainly do not get paid 'inflated salaries'. I don't think any of them are in it for the money.

Being a Councillor means a lot of work, a lot of abuse and a lot of responsibility for not a lot of thanks. I certainly wouldn't want to do it. And I certainly don't think there are "hundreds" who would do it for no salary/allowance.

As Warren says you need to offer some sort of allowance to ensure "normal" people are willing to stand. Otherwise it would just be the very rich or the very old, which would not provide a reasonable cross-section of society.

I don't agree with a lot of Councillors, but I'm always impressed with how quickly they respond to any queries (all the ones I've had dealings with anyway), and their responses are often sent late at night.

Of course anyone who thinks it's a piece of cake are more than welcome to stand for election.........
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjwilk[/bold] wrote: Lot of money for a Kit Kat.These Greens waste so much money on useless schemes.Of course all the Councillors need their inflated salaries expenses and super pensions paid for.They supposed to work for the well-being of the people and not use the people as cash cows.The way things are going everything will be dictated by the EU and we can get rid of all councillors and MPs . Otherwise make Councillors a voluntary position.There are hundreds of people who would do the job for expenses only mainly retired older people who have a real sense of values.Modern day Councillors are a Worthless bunch of snout in the trough idiots.[/p][/quote]I'm not complaining about what I get - it's a lot more than some people. £18k is a decent allowance (I don't have any other income) but sixteen cllrs get more than I do. I claim no expenses, I'll not be able to contribute to my pension after May as the Tories have stopped it. That's fine, but it is hardly placing me in the ranks of the super-rich as you imply. No allowances and making it a voluntary position? Yes, then decisions get made by retired, wealthy landlords. Who's interests do you think they will serve?[/p][/quote]Warren's right. I don't agree with everything he says, but Councillors certainly do not get paid 'inflated salaries'. I don't think any of them are in it for the money. Being a Councillor means a lot of work, a lot of abuse and a lot of responsibility for not a lot of thanks. I certainly wouldn't want to do it. And I certainly don't think there are "hundreds" who would do it for no salary/allowance. As Warren says you need to offer some sort of allowance to ensure "normal" people are willing to stand. Otherwise it would just be the very rich or the very old, which would not provide a reasonable cross-section of society. I don't agree with a lot of Councillors, but I'm always impressed with how quickly they respond to any queries (all the ones I've had dealings with anyway), and their responses are often sent late at night. Of course anyone who thinks it's a piece of cake are more than welcome to stand for election......... Quiterie
  • Score: 18

1:33pm Fri 4 Jul 14

ThinkBrighton says...

£25 million shortfall, If the loan of £30 million hadn't been given to the i360,
The city would be in credit by £5 million and you don't need to be an accountant to figure that one out
Councillors are on the whole over paid and not fit for purpose, advised by a bunch or civic employees who wouldn't Know their arse from their elbow, who wouldn't survive in the private sector
£25 million shortfall, If the loan of £30 million hadn't been given to the i360, The city would be in credit by £5 million and you don't need to be an accountant to figure that one out Councillors are on the whole over paid and not fit for purpose, advised by a bunch or civic employees who wouldn't Know their arse from their elbow, who wouldn't survive in the private sector ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 16

1:43pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Thay Qon U says...

The latest published national statistics for Council Tax Collection show that there was £3.875m of uncollected Council Tax by BHCC for the last financial year (2013/14) alone, and in total arrears of uncollected Council Tax of £14.942 million in BHCC accounts.

I think it would be more equitable for the Green Administration and Penny Thompson and her staff at BHCC to look at collecting those funds before contemplating any rise in Council Tax for 2015/16.
The latest published national statistics for Council Tax Collection show that there was £3.875m of uncollected Council Tax by BHCC for the last financial year (2013/14) alone, and in total arrears of uncollected Council Tax of £14.942 million in BHCC accounts. I think it would be more equitable for the Green Administration and Penny Thompson and her staff at BHCC to look at collecting those funds before contemplating any rise in Council Tax for 2015/16. Thay Qon U
  • Score: 26

1:55pm Fri 4 Jul 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Thay Qon U wrote:
The latest published national statistics for Council Tax Collection show that there was £3.875m of uncollected Council Tax by BHCC for the last financial year (2013/14) alone, and in total arrears of uncollected Council Tax of £14.942 million in BHCC accounts.

I think it would be more equitable for the Green Administration and Penny Thompson and her staff at BHCC to look at collecting those funds before contemplating any rise in Council Tax for 2015/16.
Agree entirely. It would be very informative to know as to why it has been allowed to build up to this level. Further evidence of gross mismanagement of the city's finances under this Green council?
[quote][p][bold]Thay Qon U[/bold] wrote: The latest published national statistics for Council Tax Collection show that there was £3.875m of uncollected Council Tax by BHCC for the last financial year (2013/14) alone, and in total arrears of uncollected Council Tax of £14.942 million in BHCC accounts. I think it would be more equitable for the Green Administration and Penny Thompson and her staff at BHCC to look at collecting those funds before contemplating any rise in Council Tax for 2015/16.[/p][/quote]Agree entirely. It would be very informative to know as to why it has been allowed to build up to this level. Further evidence of gross mismanagement of the city's finances under this Green council? fredflintstone1
  • Score: 21

2:22pm Fri 4 Jul 14

rolivan says...

We love Red Billy wrote:
H jars us very quiet.
Not only that but Eugenius seems to have disappeared into the Ether.
[quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: H jars us very quiet.[/p][/quote]Not only that but Eugenius seems to have disappeared into the Ether. rolivan
  • Score: 12

3:02pm Fri 4 Jul 14

her professional says...

Ennuid wrote:
her professional wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS.
As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably).
Well said Jason for telling the truth.
Going on about the health and other benefits of cycling is utterly bogus. The Old Shoreham Road cycle track has increased congestion and hardly anyone uses it. I dread to think how much it must have cost. Cycle paths where appropriate are indeed a good idea, think of the seafront for example and other places where they can be used to make cycling safer, but the green party in Brighton behaves as if anyone with a car is an enemy. And in terms of wasting money why is there a counting device on the London road as you come into Brighton that actually counts the number of cyclists who have gone by. Is that money well spent?!

The whole 20mph this is verging on the insane as well, no one pays any attention to it. Vanity projects are an extremely accurate description of what these things are.

I work in the private sector and would like to see some of the efficiencies that we have to deal with every day as a matter of course applied to the council. Jason Kitcat wouldn't know the truth if it punched him but he sure is good at spending other peoples money.
No doubt Mr Kitcat will add the whole thing to his cv and we will see him on a national stage before too long. God help the nation, but at least he wont be mucking up Brighton and Hove before too long.
Please explain why the health benefits are bogus.
[quote][p][bold]Ennuid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.[/p][/quote]Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS. As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably). Well said Jason for telling the truth.[/p][/quote]Going on about the health and other benefits of cycling is utterly bogus. The Old Shoreham Road cycle track has increased congestion and hardly anyone uses it. I dread to think how much it must have cost. Cycle paths where appropriate are indeed a good idea, think of the seafront for example and other places where they can be used to make cycling safer, but the green party in Brighton behaves as if anyone with a car is an enemy. And in terms of wasting money why is there a counting device on the London road as you come into Brighton that actually counts the number of cyclists who have gone by. Is that money well spent?! The whole 20mph this is verging on the insane as well, no one pays any attention to it. Vanity projects are an extremely accurate description of what these things are. I work in the private sector and would like to see some of the efficiencies that we have to deal with every day as a matter of course applied to the council. Jason Kitcat wouldn't know the truth if it punched him but he sure is good at spending other peoples money. No doubt Mr Kitcat will add the whole thing to his cv and we will see him on a national stage before too long. God help the nation, but at least he wont be mucking up Brighton and Hove before too long.[/p][/quote]Please explain why the health benefits are bogus. her professional
  • Score: -22

3:03pm Fri 4 Jul 14

We love Red Billy says...

I see the Latest Magazine has a fine article on political chamber pots. Every home should have one.
I see the Latest Magazine has a fine article on political chamber pots. Every home should have one. We love Red Billy
  • Score: 7

3:20pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Fercri Sakes says...

Ennuid wrote:
her professional wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS.
As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably).
Well said Jason for telling the truth.
Going on about the health and other benefits of cycling is utterly bogus. The Old Shoreham Road cycle track has increased congestion and hardly anyone uses it. I dread to think how much it must have cost. Cycle paths where appropriate are indeed a good idea, think of the seafront for example and other places where they can be used to make cycling safer, but the green party in Brighton behaves as if anyone with a car is an enemy. And in terms of wasting money why is there a counting device on the London road as you come into Brighton that actually counts the number of cyclists who have gone by. Is that money well spent?!

The whole 20mph this is verging on the insane as well, no one pays any attention to it. Vanity projects are an extremely accurate description of what these things are.

I work in the private sector and would like to see some of the efficiencies that we have to deal with every day as a matter of course applied to the council. Jason Kitcat wouldn't know the truth if it punched him but he sure is good at spending other peoples money.
No doubt Mr Kitcat will add the whole thing to his cv and we will see him on a national stage before too long. God help the nation, but at least he wont be mucking up Brighton and Hove before too long.
1. People do use the Old Shoreham Road bicycle track. It connects two schools up with the national cycle route.

2. That road was always gridlocked. It's the New England Street/Preston Circus area that causes the gridlock. Changing to one lane has not had much of an effect.

3. The whole cycle route cost us the same as about half a house in that area.

4. 20mph limits save lives. People are breaking the law and putting people in danger by going over this. They are ofetn the same people who think that cycling through a red light is a more dangerous menace to the populace although statistically incorrect.

5. Yes, Mr Kitcat is good at spending people's money, that's his job. The previous incumbents weren't very good at it at all.
[quote][p][bold]Ennuid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.[/p][/quote]Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS. As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably). Well said Jason for telling the truth.[/p][/quote]Going on about the health and other benefits of cycling is utterly bogus. The Old Shoreham Road cycle track has increased congestion and hardly anyone uses it. I dread to think how much it must have cost. Cycle paths where appropriate are indeed a good idea, think of the seafront for example and other places where they can be used to make cycling safer, but the green party in Brighton behaves as if anyone with a car is an enemy. And in terms of wasting money why is there a counting device on the London road as you come into Brighton that actually counts the number of cyclists who have gone by. Is that money well spent?! The whole 20mph this is verging on the insane as well, no one pays any attention to it. Vanity projects are an extremely accurate description of what these things are. I work in the private sector and would like to see some of the efficiencies that we have to deal with every day as a matter of course applied to the council. Jason Kitcat wouldn't know the truth if it punched him but he sure is good at spending other peoples money. No doubt Mr Kitcat will add the whole thing to his cv and we will see him on a national stage before too long. God help the nation, but at least he wont be mucking up Brighton and Hove before too long.[/p][/quote]1. People do use the Old Shoreham Road bicycle track. It connects two schools up with the national cycle route. 2. That road was always gridlocked. It's the New England Street/Preston Circus area that causes the gridlock. Changing to one lane has not had much of an effect. 3. The whole cycle route cost us the same as about half a house in that area. 4. 20mph limits save lives. People are breaking the law and putting people in danger by going over this. They are ofetn the same people who think that cycling through a red light is a more dangerous menace to the populace although statistically incorrect. 5. Yes, Mr Kitcat is good at spending people's money, that's his job. The previous incumbents weren't very good at it at all. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -41

4:25pm Fri 4 Jul 14

We love Red Billy says...

Sorry ferki but you are wrong. I have lived on the Lewes Rd for over 25 years and it was not gridlocked until this nonsence was put in. You sound rather nervous. Maybe you rely on the green menace for your living? The gravy train is over. Get out of our city.
Sorry ferki but you are wrong. I have lived on the Lewes Rd for over 25 years and it was not gridlocked until this nonsence was put in. You sound rather nervous. Maybe you rely on the green menace for your living? The gravy train is over. Get out of our city. We love Red Billy
  • Score: 28

4:31pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I cycle around town every day an commute to work. I also drive a car and motorbike.
The cycle lane PR the Greens claim victory for was bogus. The Lewes Road cycle lane has existed for a decade or more.
All they did was move a small number of bus stops in front of the cycle lane, but even then not all of them.
Money could have been saved by not doing any of the work as the lane already worked fine. If the Greens then wanted to create the bus lane they could have done it with a simple traffic order closing the inside lane.
But more importantly, what her professional fails to report is that the road surfaces in the town are atrocious, making cycling very dangerous. The upper Lewes road is shocking, the Lewes road, north street and the roads around the steine and at the bottom of Southover Street. The cycle lane on e Lewes road is so bad in parts you have to cycle in the road with traffic.
It's all very well banging on about cycle lanes, but if the roads are **** before you reach the lanes there's little point in promoting them.
What was also disgraceful and watseful was the party the Greens held in Wild Park to celebrate the cycle lane which had existed for years. For the whole month before travellers were parked up in Wild Park and none of the councillors were interested in health until they wanted a wasteful party.
No one believes a word they say.
I cycle around town every day an commute to work. I also drive a car and motorbike. The cycle lane PR the Greens claim victory for was bogus. The Lewes Road cycle lane has existed for a decade or more. All they did was move a small number of bus stops in front of the cycle lane, but even then not all of them. Money could have been saved by not doing any of the work as the lane already worked fine. If the Greens then wanted to create the bus lane they could have done it with a simple traffic order closing the inside lane. But more importantly, what her professional fails to report is that the road surfaces in the town are atrocious, making cycling very dangerous. The upper Lewes road is shocking, the Lewes road, north street and the roads around the steine and at the bottom of Southover Street. The cycle lane on e Lewes road is so bad in parts you have to cycle in the road with traffic. It's all very well banging on about cycle lanes, but if the roads are **** before you reach the lanes there's little point in promoting them. What was also disgraceful and watseful was the party the Greens held in Wild Park to celebrate the cycle lane which had existed for years. For the whole month before travellers were parked up in Wild Park and none of the councillors were interested in health until they wanted a wasteful party. No one believes a word they say. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 26

4:35pm Fri 4 Jul 14

menton says...

Are they just stupid? This year's proposed increase got thrown out, so what do they think will happen to this latest daft idea. Come May, let's just vote ANYTHING BUT GREEN. Ta ta, nutters.
Are they just stupid? This year's proposed increase got thrown out, so what do they think will happen to this latest daft idea. Come May, let's just vote ANYTHING BUT GREEN. Ta ta, nutters. menton
  • Score: 18

5:33pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Ennuid says...

@her professional.

The health benefits of cycling are clearly not bogus. Otherwise I wouldnt have said there was a definite place for cycle lanes in the city. Using the health benefits of cycling as an excuse to introduce whatever hair brained plan comes into your head is bogus. I hope that clarifies.
@her professional. The health benefits of cycling are clearly not bogus. Otherwise I wouldnt have said there was a definite place for cycle lanes in the city. Using the health benefits of cycling as an excuse to introduce whatever hair brained plan comes into your head is bogus. I hope that clarifies. Ennuid
  • Score: 13

5:49pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Ennuid says...

@ferci

Re 1: Of course people use the old shoreham road cycle lane. Just not many and not enough to justify the cost, or the inconvenience it causes others. Count the bikes and count the cars and you will see what I mean. It remains a largely unused waste of money.

Re 2: Doing what you can to increase the gridlock is hardly going to do the oxygen count for the local residents much good. Something designed to free up traffic across the city might actually be more productive.

Re 3: To any councillors reading this, if it really is so cheap to put in then it will be cheap to get rid of it as well. I for one, and Im not alone will vote for anyone prepared to do that. My guess is that it wasnt cheap at all.

Re 4: The 20mph limit is ludicrous and a vanity project. A car by definition is a potentially dangerous object. Would it not make more sense to ban them entirely, or perhaps introduce a 10mph limit. Or would that just be silly and extreme (sic)? The 30mph national limit is there for a reason and there is no talk of it being changed. The 20mph in Brighton is grandstanding by the greens so you have some straw to cling to to show you have made a difference.

Re 5: I think there are so few people left that think Mr Kitcat is good at anything at all that I just cant be bothered to properly deal with that. Though I would agree that whichever party runs Brighton needs to spend the money wisely. The greens have been an utter disaster. I would guess Mr Kitcat is as surprised as anybody he ended up as council leader and only got involved because he couldnt make a decent living out of IT. It all just spiralled out of control after that. His record of management has hardly been inspiring has it!
@ferci Re 1: Of course people use the old shoreham road cycle lane. Just not many and not enough to justify the cost, or the inconvenience it causes others. Count the bikes and count the cars and you will see what I mean. It remains a largely unused waste of money. Re 2: Doing what you can to increase the gridlock is hardly going to do the oxygen count for the local residents much good. Something designed to free up traffic across the city might actually be more productive. Re 3: To any councillors reading this, if it really is so cheap to put in then it will be cheap to get rid of it as well. I for one, and Im not alone will vote for anyone prepared to do that. My guess is that it wasnt cheap at all. Re 4: The 20mph limit is ludicrous and a vanity project. A car by definition is a potentially dangerous object. Would it not make more sense to ban them entirely, or perhaps introduce a 10mph limit. Or would that just be silly and extreme (sic)? The 30mph national limit is there for a reason and there is no talk of it being changed. The 20mph in Brighton is grandstanding by the greens so you have some straw to cling to to show you have made a difference. Re 5: I think there are so few people left that think Mr Kitcat is good at anything at all that I just cant be bothered to properly deal with that. Though I would agree that whichever party runs Brighton needs to spend the money wisely. The greens have been an utter disaster. I would guess Mr Kitcat is as surprised as anybody he ended up as council leader and only got involved because he couldnt make a decent living out of IT. It all just spiralled out of control after that. His record of management has hardly been inspiring has it! Ennuid
  • Score: 16

7:54pm Fri 4 Jul 14

NickBtn says...

Max Ripple wrote:
s&k wrote:
Well we need to pay more council tax to subsidise all the students who don't. Only joking.
Don't joke. It's a serious matter. Students and their greedy landlords pay NOTHING. If the law says that students don't have to pay, then the shortfall which is about £5.5 million per year, should be made up by the landlords who are raking in upwards of £2000 per month on their squalid properties. And don't just argue that the cost would simply be passed on to the tenants - the council could state that the rent could not go up above its current rate when this measure is introduced. If it did go up then under the HMO licensing scheme the council could have the power to fine the landlord.
The HMO licensing scheme put rents up when it was introduced so don't see this working. Plus, despite being mandatory, only half of landlords take part. So the honest landlords pay (and so their tenants do) the poorly run houses don't and so appear cheaper and attract more tenants. It's like the council giving a discount if you run your property badly!

But yes, we do need to work out ways for the students to pay their share.

However HMO licensing has been a failure. Many don't take part and the rubbish/noise problems that it was meant to fix aren't effectively covered by it. Yet another example of the council not working well....
[quote][p][bold]Max Ripple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote: Well we need to pay more council tax to subsidise all the students who don't. Only joking.[/p][/quote]Don't joke. It's a serious matter. Students and their greedy landlords pay NOTHING. If the law says that students don't have to pay, then the shortfall which is about £5.5 million per year, should be made up by the landlords who are raking in upwards of £2000 per month on their squalid properties. And don't just argue that the cost would simply be passed on to the tenants - the council could state that the rent could not go up above its current rate when this measure is introduced. If it did go up then under the HMO licensing scheme the council could have the power to fine the landlord.[/p][/quote]The HMO licensing scheme put rents up when it was introduced so don't see this working. Plus, despite being mandatory, only half of landlords take part. So the honest landlords pay (and so their tenants do) the poorly run houses don't and so appear cheaper and attract more tenants. It's like the council giving a discount if you run your property badly! But yes, we do need to work out ways for the students to pay their share. However HMO licensing has been a failure. Many don't take part and the rubbish/noise problems that it was meant to fix aren't effectively covered by it. Yet another example of the council not working well.... NickBtn
  • Score: 11

9:01pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bill in Hanover says...

hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
Many homeowners have scrimped to afford their own property rather than relying on social housing which is rented out at less than half the private sector and a house is only valuable (in financial terms) when it is sold, all the time it is a home it doesn't earn any money, in fact not having a landlord (private or Council) means we pay for our own repairs rather than just picking up the 'phone and having it done for free. Perhaps the residents in Council houses and flats should pay more as they are the biggest benefiuciaries in the housing market.
[quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]Many homeowners have scrimped to afford their own property rather than relying on social housing which is rented out at less than half the private sector and a house is only valuable (in financial terms) when it is sold, all the time it is a home it doesn't earn any money, in fact not having a landlord (private or Council) means we pay for our own repairs rather than just picking up the 'phone and having it done for free. Perhaps the residents in Council houses and flats should pay more as they are the biggest benefiuciaries in the housing market. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 8

9:05pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bill in Hanover says...

gheese77 wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Traffic improvements are not funded out of council tax as you well know
Have we had any 'traffic improvements' I spent 15 minutes today trying to get from the Vogue Gyratory to Coldean Lane by car. I also tend to walk into town rather than pay 2 to 3 times the national average to park my car
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.[/p][/quote]Traffic improvements are not funded out of council tax as you well know[/p][/quote]Have we had any 'traffic improvements' I spent 15 minutes today trying to get from the Vogue Gyratory to Coldean Lane by car. I also tend to walk into town rather than pay 2 to 3 times the national average to park my car Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 9

9:48pm Fri 4 Jul 14

xlaughingx says...

As long as my pay goes up by a measily 1% each year that is the maximum rise I will pay...what will they do?...you can't get blood out of a stone!
As long as my pay goes up by a measily 1% each year that is the maximum rise I will pay...what will they do?...you can't get blood out of a stone! xlaughingx
  • Score: 5

8:39am Sat 5 Jul 14

hoveguyactually says...

her professional wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS.
As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably).
Well said Jason for telling the truth.
But they don't use them. Have a look at Old Shoreham Road. Hardly ever is there a cyclist using the expensive, unnecessarily raised, cycle track. And how many times have we seen cyclists riding in the road along Hove seafront, instead of using the cycle track that takes up half the pavement width. So much for all the talk about cyclists finding the road too dangerous to use. I actually saw one fool riding on a very windy day, who fell off the bike, while motorists had to swerve or brake sharply.

And I am fed up with dodging the mass of cyclists along the promenade who ignore the "No cycling" signs, and encourage their children to do likewise. Not only is there never a clampdown on those idiots, but the city(?) is loaded with other imbeciles who ride at a frantic pace along pavements. No sign of any condemnation from the council, who go out of their stupid way to encourage more and more of this behaviour. And no police around to caution or stop them. All very well to talk about health benefits, but what about the safety of pedestrians?

Oh by the way, as far as the Council Circus is concerned, Kittycat is the biggest clown of the lot.
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.[/p][/quote]Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS. As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably). Well said Jason for telling the truth.[/p][/quote]But they don't use them. Have a look at Old Shoreham Road. Hardly ever is there a cyclist using the expensive, unnecessarily raised, cycle track. And how many times have we seen cyclists riding in the road along Hove seafront, instead of using the cycle track that takes up half the pavement width. So much for all the talk about cyclists finding the road too dangerous to use. I actually saw one fool riding on a very windy day, who fell off the bike, while motorists had to swerve or brake sharply. And I am fed up with dodging the mass of cyclists along the promenade who ignore the "No cycling" signs, and encourage their children to do likewise. Not only is there never a clampdown on those idiots, but the city(?) is loaded with other imbeciles who ride at a frantic pace along pavements. No sign of any condemnation from the council, who go out of their stupid way to encourage more and more of this behaviour. And no police around to caution or stop them. All very well to talk about health benefits, but what about the safety of pedestrians? Oh by the way, as far as the Council Circus is concerned, Kittycat is the biggest clown of the lot. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 10

9:11am Sat 5 Jul 14

taxidiy says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
Ennuid wrote:
her professional wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS.
As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably).
Well said Jason for telling the truth.
Going on about the health and other benefits of cycling is utterly bogus. The Old Shoreham Road cycle track has increased congestion and hardly anyone uses it. I dread to think how much it must have cost. Cycle paths where appropriate are indeed a good idea, think of the seafront for example and other places where they can be used to make cycling safer, but the green party in Brighton behaves as if anyone with a car is an enemy. And in terms of wasting money why is there a counting device on the London road as you come into Brighton that actually counts the number of cyclists who have gone by. Is that money well spent?!

The whole 20mph this is verging on the insane as well, no one pays any attention to it. Vanity projects are an extremely accurate description of what these things are.

I work in the private sector and would like to see some of the efficiencies that we have to deal with every day as a matter of course applied to the council. Jason Kitcat wouldn't know the truth if it punched him but he sure is good at spending other peoples money.
No doubt Mr Kitcat will add the whole thing to his cv and we will see him on a national stage before too long. God help the nation, but at least he wont be mucking up Brighton and Hove before too long.
1. People do use the Old Shoreham Road bicycle track. It connects two schools up with the national cycle route.

2. That road was always gridlocked. It's the New England Street/Preston Circus area that causes the gridlock. Changing to one lane has not had much of an effect.

3. The whole cycle route cost us the same as about half a house in that area.

4. 20mph limits save lives. People are breaking the law and putting people in danger by going over this. They are ofetn the same people who think that cycling through a red light is a more dangerous menace to the populace although statistically incorrect.

5. Yes, Mr Kitcat is good at spending people's money, that's his job. The previous incumbents weren't very good at it at all.
Fercri Sakes says...
4. 20mph limits save lives. People are breaking the law and putting people in danger by going over this. They are ofetn the same people who think that cycling through a red light is a more dangerous menace to the populace although statistically incorrect.
Suggest you check the following link from Sky News today which says it makes things worse!!
https://news.sky.com
/story/1294728/20mph
-zone-road-crash-cas
ualties-rise-by-26-p
ercent
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ennuid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.[/p][/quote]Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS. As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably). Well said Jason for telling the truth.[/p][/quote]Going on about the health and other benefits of cycling is utterly bogus. The Old Shoreham Road cycle track has increased congestion and hardly anyone uses it. I dread to think how much it must have cost. Cycle paths where appropriate are indeed a good idea, think of the seafront for example and other places where they can be used to make cycling safer, but the green party in Brighton behaves as if anyone with a car is an enemy. And in terms of wasting money why is there a counting device on the London road as you come into Brighton that actually counts the number of cyclists who have gone by. Is that money well spent?! The whole 20mph this is verging on the insane as well, no one pays any attention to it. Vanity projects are an extremely accurate description of what these things are. I work in the private sector and would like to see some of the efficiencies that we have to deal with every day as a matter of course applied to the council. Jason Kitcat wouldn't know the truth if it punched him but he sure is good at spending other peoples money. No doubt Mr Kitcat will add the whole thing to his cv and we will see him on a national stage before too long. God help the nation, but at least he wont be mucking up Brighton and Hove before too long.[/p][/quote]1. People do use the Old Shoreham Road bicycle track. It connects two schools up with the national cycle route. 2. That road was always gridlocked. It's the New England Street/Preston Circus area that causes the gridlock. Changing to one lane has not had much of an effect. 3. The whole cycle route cost us the same as about half a house in that area. 4. 20mph limits save lives. People are breaking the law and putting people in danger by going over this. They are ofetn the same people who think that cycling through a red light is a more dangerous menace to the populace although statistically incorrect. 5. Yes, Mr Kitcat is good at spending people's money, that's his job. The previous incumbents weren't very good at it at all.[/p][/quote]Fercri Sakes says... 4. 20mph limits save lives. People are breaking the law and putting people in danger by going over this. They are ofetn the same people who think that cycling through a red light is a more dangerous menace to the populace although statistically incorrect. Suggest you check the following link from Sky News today which says it makes things worse!! https://news.sky.com /story/1294728/20mph -zone-road-crash-cas ualties-rise-by-26-p ercent taxidiy
  • Score: -1

10:26am Sat 5 Jul 14

busybee70 says...

I don't know where KitKat gets the idea of putting up the council tax by 5.9%. If the idiots that run the council now hadn't spent so much on cycle lanes, which are hardly used, 20MPH written on roads and all the signs,, bus lanes on roads that are too narrow and un-necessary, ruining the Seven Dials which was alright as it was, spending our money on this i360 which is going to be a white elephant and not collecting council tax that is due then we wouldn't have to worry!!! Why does he let the travellers get away with so much? We have to pay to clear up after them and they just laugh and move some-where else. Should we really supply them with waste bins as they don't seem to know what they are for. The sooner the Greens are out then maybe we might see roads which are desperately in need of repair, get done and that stupid 3 foot high wall of weeds on Lewes Road taken away for safety reasons. Why don't they cut the grasses and trim the trees any more? Too expensive I was told and was to cut any overhanging branches over my garden myself (which means paying for some-one to do it) and throw them over the fence on to Council land. It's not safe to walk along a lot of roads or paths now with all the brambles and the trees being so low as you are ducking or dancing to miss them!
SHAME THAT MONEY ISN'T SPENT ON NECESSARY THINGS instead of making more pollution and wasting time getting from one place to another because of all the holdups whether travelling by bus or car. It's about time that students had to pay some council tax to contribute as OAP's only get a very small rise in their pension each year so where are we supposed to find all that money? From thin air I suppose!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
I don't know where KitKat gets the idea of putting up the council tax by 5.9%. If the idiots that run the council now hadn't spent so much on cycle lanes, which are hardly used, 20MPH written on roads and all the signs,, bus lanes on roads that are too narrow and un-necessary, ruining the Seven Dials which was alright as it was, spending our money on this i360 which is going to be a white elephant and not collecting council tax that is due then we wouldn't have to worry!!! Why does he let the travellers get away with so much? We have to pay to clear up after them and they just laugh and move some-where else. Should we really supply them with waste bins as they don't seem to know what they are for. The sooner the Greens are out then maybe we might see roads which are desperately in need of repair, get done and that stupid 3 foot high wall of weeds on Lewes Road taken away for safety reasons. Why don't they cut the grasses and trim the trees any more? Too expensive I was told and was to cut any overhanging branches over my garden myself (which means paying for some-one to do it) and throw them over the fence on to Council land. It's not safe to walk along a lot of roads or paths now with all the brambles and the trees being so low as you are ducking or dancing to miss them! SHAME THAT MONEY ISN'T SPENT ON NECESSARY THINGS instead of making more pollution and wasting time getting from one place to another because of all the holdups whether travelling by bus or car. It's about time that students had to pay some council tax to contribute as OAP's only get a very small rise in their pension each year so where are we supposed to find all that money? From thin air I suppose!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! busybee70
  • Score: 8

10:50am Sat 5 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
Many homeowners have scrimped to afford their own property rather than relying on social housing which is rented out at less than half the private sector and a house is only valuable (in financial terms) when it is sold, all the time it is a home it doesn't earn any money, in fact not having a landlord (private or Council) means we pay for our own repairs rather than just picking up the 'phone and having it done for free. Perhaps the residents in Council houses and flats should pay more as they are the biggest benefiuciaries in the housing market.
Please don't make my heart bleed too much. You're comparing apples and pears here. You shout about the bad things that come with owning a home. You must be a homeowner that is a bit different to the ones that I know, because they've all been telling me how much money they've made from their home by just doing nothing. THIS CAPITAL GAIN GOES UNTAXED FOR MANY. COMPARE THIS WITH HOW PEOPLES' HARD EARNED INCOME IS TAXED. Life is all about handling the rough with the smooth, and I suspect that your life has been more smooth than rough in this regards, even if you did have to scrimp to afford the deposit once upon a time, many moons ago.
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]Many homeowners have scrimped to afford their own property rather than relying on social housing which is rented out at less than half the private sector and a house is only valuable (in financial terms) when it is sold, all the time it is a home it doesn't earn any money, in fact not having a landlord (private or Council) means we pay for our own repairs rather than just picking up the 'phone and having it done for free. Perhaps the residents in Council houses and flats should pay more as they are the biggest benefiuciaries in the housing market.[/p][/quote]Please don't make my heart bleed too much. You're comparing apples and pears here. You shout about the bad things that come with owning a home. You must be a homeowner that is a bit different to the ones that I know, because they've all been telling me how much money they've made from their home by just doing nothing. THIS CAPITAL GAIN GOES UNTAXED FOR MANY. COMPARE THIS WITH HOW PEOPLES' HARD EARNED INCOME IS TAXED. Life is all about handling the rough with the smooth, and I suspect that your life has been more smooth than rough in this regards, even if you did have to scrimp to afford the deposit once upon a time, many moons ago. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -2

10:57am Sat 5 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.
A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.
Because a bank is really likely to lend to a pensioner for example. The new lending rules will exclude a lot of people from remortgaging. As for equity release - absolute con and why should someone do that just because the council have got greedy. These are peoples homes, not financial assets.
Sorry to inform you this but people's houses are not considered their homes - they are a financial asset when you look at the elderly who need care. A lot of people are not aware of this.

Your home will be sold to pay for your care in a horrible old people's home and the care costs are extortionate, £700 per week is cheap and for that you get very little.

It's a rip off and our government is very aware of what is going on and does nothing about it. The care homes aren't even inspected very well and not very often and always with prior notice.
But for people to have a reasonable chance of getting good care in old age, a cheap and plentiful supply of immigrant labour is needed. Here we go round the mulberry bush.
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.[/p][/quote]A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.[/p][/quote]Because a bank is really likely to lend to a pensioner for example. The new lending rules will exclude a lot of people from remortgaging. As for equity release - absolute con and why should someone do that just because the council have got greedy. These are peoples homes, not financial assets.[/p][/quote]Sorry to inform you this but people's houses are not considered their homes - they are a financial asset when you look at the elderly who need care. A lot of people are not aware of this. Your home will be sold to pay for your care in a horrible old people's home and the care costs are extortionate, £700 per week is cheap and for that you get very little. It's a rip off and our government is very aware of what is going on and does nothing about it. The care homes aren't even inspected very well and not very often and always with prior notice.[/p][/quote]But for people to have a reasonable chance of getting good care in old age, a cheap and plentiful supply of immigrant labour is needed. Here we go round the mulberry bush. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -1

10:57am Sat 5 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.
A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.
Because a bank is really likely to lend to a pensioner for example. The new lending rules will exclude a lot of people from remortgaging. As for equity release - absolute con and why should someone do that just because the council have got greedy. These are peoples homes, not financial assets.
Sorry to inform you this but people's houses are not considered their homes - they are a financial asset when you look at the elderly who need care. A lot of people are not aware of this.

Your home will be sold to pay for your care in a horrible old people's home and the care costs are extortionate, £700 per week is cheap and for that you get very little.

It's a rip off and our government is very aware of what is going on and does nothing about it. The care homes aren't even inspected very well and not very often and always with prior notice.
But for people to have a reasonable chance of getting good care in old age, a cheap and plentiful supply of immigrant labour is needed. Here we go round the mulberry bush.
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]It's also flawed as rising house values don't provide physical cash to the house owner unless they sell so it wont assist them paying a council tax rise.[/p][/quote]A remortgage or equity release package will though. You can't live in a thriving city with a direct link to London and moan about paying an extra £20 a month in council tax! If you can't afford it move to Worthing or Eastbourne. Much cheaper there.[/p][/quote]Because a bank is really likely to lend to a pensioner for example. The new lending rules will exclude a lot of people from remortgaging. As for equity release - absolute con and why should someone do that just because the council have got greedy. These are peoples homes, not financial assets.[/p][/quote]Sorry to inform you this but people's houses are not considered their homes - they are a financial asset when you look at the elderly who need care. A lot of people are not aware of this. Your home will be sold to pay for your care in a horrible old people's home and the care costs are extortionate, £700 per week is cheap and for that you get very little. It's a rip off and our government is very aware of what is going on and does nothing about it. The care homes aren't even inspected very well and not very often and always with prior notice.[/p][/quote]But for people to have a reasonable chance of getting good care in old age, a cheap and plentiful supply of immigrant labour is needed. Here we go round the mulberry bush. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -2

11:02am Sat 5 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

theargusissoinformat
ive
wrote:
Bill in Hanover wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?
Many homeowners have scrimped to afford their own property rather than relying on social housing which is rented out at less than half the private sector and a house is only valuable (in financial terms) when it is sold, all the time it is a home it doesn't earn any money, in fact not having a landlord (private or Council) means we pay for our own repairs rather than just picking up the 'phone and having it done for free. Perhaps the residents in Council houses and flats should pay more as they are the biggest benefiuciaries in the housing market.
Please don't make my heart bleed too much. You're comparing apples and pears here. You shout about the bad things that come with owning a home. You must be a homeowner that is a bit different to the ones that I know, because they've all been telling me how much money they've made from their home by just doing nothing. THIS CAPITAL GAIN GOES UNTAXED FOR MANY. COMPARE THIS WITH HOW PEOPLES' HARD EARNED INCOME IS TAXED. Life is all about handling the rough with the smooth, and I suspect that your life has been more smooth than rough in this regards, even if you did have to scrimp to afford the deposit once upon a time, many moons ago.
I'm sorry. I forgot to the mention the HISTORICALLY LOW INTEREST RATES these past few years.
[quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat ive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: I've cracked it.... Homeowners pay slightly more council tax as these are the people benefitting from the housing boom and annual house price rises of 10%. Remember, the average house price in Brighton & Hove is £311,000. Tenants, would pay slightly less as they haven't had this benefit. My idea is slightly flawed as only works in a rising market! Still, be good for the next 3-5 years until the budget stabilises. Good eh?[/p][/quote]Many homeowners have scrimped to afford their own property rather than relying on social housing which is rented out at less than half the private sector and a house is only valuable (in financial terms) when it is sold, all the time it is a home it doesn't earn any money, in fact not having a landlord (private or Council) means we pay for our own repairs rather than just picking up the 'phone and having it done for free. Perhaps the residents in Council houses and flats should pay more as they are the biggest benefiuciaries in the housing market.[/p][/quote]Please don't make my heart bleed too much. You're comparing apples and pears here. You shout about the bad things that come with owning a home. You must be a homeowner that is a bit different to the ones that I know, because they've all been telling me how much money they've made from their home by just doing nothing. THIS CAPITAL GAIN GOES UNTAXED FOR MANY. COMPARE THIS WITH HOW PEOPLES' HARD EARNED INCOME IS TAXED. Life is all about handling the rough with the smooth, and I suspect that your life has been more smooth than rough in this regards, even if you did have to scrimp to afford the deposit once upon a time, many moons ago.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry. I forgot to the mention the HISTORICALLY LOW INTEREST RATES these past few years. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -3

11:17am Sat 5 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Thay Qon U wrote:
The latest published national statistics for Council Tax Collection show that there was £3.875m of uncollected Council Tax by BHCC for the last financial year (2013/14) alone, and in total arrears of uncollected Council Tax of £14.942 million in BHCC accounts.

I think it would be more equitable for the Green Administration and Penny Thompson and her staff at BHCC to look at collecting those funds before contemplating any rise in Council Tax for 2015/16.
Agree entirely. It would be very informative to know as to why it has been allowed to build up to this level. Further evidence of gross mismanagement of the city's finances under this Green council?
Agree to a point, but I don't think that this has anything to do with the Greens. The council has been run by its officers for many years. Brighton and Hove City Council seems to be a miniature version of Whitehall in Yes Minister, where councillors of all parties have been fed limited information by people who are only interested in their job security and in their pensions.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thay Qon U[/bold] wrote: The latest published national statistics for Council Tax Collection show that there was £3.875m of uncollected Council Tax by BHCC for the last financial year (2013/14) alone, and in total arrears of uncollected Council Tax of £14.942 million in BHCC accounts. I think it would be more equitable for the Green Administration and Penny Thompson and her staff at BHCC to look at collecting those funds before contemplating any rise in Council Tax for 2015/16.[/p][/quote]Agree entirely. It would be very informative to know as to why it has been allowed to build up to this level. Further evidence of gross mismanagement of the city's finances under this Green council?[/p][/quote]Agree to a point, but I don't think that this has anything to do with the Greens. The council has been run by its officers for many years. Brighton and Hove City Council seems to be a miniature version of Whitehall in Yes Minister, where councillors of all parties have been fed limited information by people who are only interested in their job security and in their pensions. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -1

12:56pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Ennuid says...

Perhaps they can use the money from the council tax hike to pay for more public service announcements on the radio, like the big brother style one we get at the moment on juice about the 20mph limit. I would willingly pay an extra 5.9% to listen to some green nazi telling me to catch the bus, sell my car, ride a bike or risk being arrested, wear sandals, talk about the evils of fracking, go vegan, and pay more tax, every five minutes when I want to listen to a tune. It would be money truly well spent as that is the kind of stuff I dont do and I really need to be told. Keep on at it green party, you clearly really know what you are doing. Greens for Brighton Uber Alles!
Perhaps they can use the money from the council tax hike to pay for more public service announcements on the radio, like the big brother style one we get at the moment on juice about the 20mph limit. I would willingly pay an extra 5.9% to listen to some green nazi telling me to catch the bus, sell my car, ride a bike or risk being arrested, wear sandals, talk about the evils of fracking, go vegan, and pay more tax, every five minutes when I want to listen to a tune. It would be money truly well spent as that is the kind of stuff I dont do and I really need to be told. Keep on at it green party, you clearly really know what you are doing. Greens for Brighton Uber Alles! Ennuid
  • Score: 5

5:58pm Sat 5 Jul 14

We love Red Billy says...

I hear that Matron Lucas has called for a night on the long knives and that young Ben is for the chop on Monday. Watch this space.
I hear that Matron Lucas has called for a night on the long knives and that young Ben is for the chop on Monday. Watch this space. We love Red Billy
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Sat 5 Jul 14

NickBrt says...

If they chop Duncan please can they do it the halal way?!
If they chop Duncan please can they do it the halal way?! NickBrt
  • Score: 1

6:44pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Plantpot says...

taxidiy wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Ennuid wrote:
her professional wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”.

Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.
Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS.
As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably).
Well said Jason for telling the truth.
Going on about the health and other benefits of cycling is utterly bogus. The Old Shoreham Road cycle track has increased congestion and hardly anyone uses it. I dread to think how much it must have cost. Cycle paths where appropriate are indeed a good idea, think of the seafront for example and other places where they can be used to make cycling safer, but the green party in Brighton behaves as if anyone with a car is an enemy. And in terms of wasting money why is there a counting device on the London road as you come into Brighton that actually counts the number of cyclists who have gone by. Is that money well spent?!

The whole 20mph this is verging on the insane as well, no one pays any attention to it. Vanity projects are an extremely accurate description of what these things are.

I work in the private sector and would like to see some of the efficiencies that we have to deal with every day as a matter of course applied to the council. Jason Kitcat wouldn't know the truth if it punched him but he sure is good at spending other peoples money.
No doubt Mr Kitcat will add the whole thing to his cv and we will see him on a national stage before too long. God help the nation, but at least he wont be mucking up Brighton and Hove before too long.
1. People do use the Old Shoreham Road bicycle track. It connects two schools up with the national cycle route.

2. That road was always gridlocked. It's the New England Street/Preston Circus area that causes the gridlock. Changing to one lane has not had much of an effect.

3. The whole cycle route cost us the same as about half a house in that area.

4. 20mph limits save lives. People are breaking the law and putting people in danger by going over this. They are ofetn the same people who think that cycling through a red light is a more dangerous menace to the populace although statistically incorrect.

5. Yes, Mr Kitcat is good at spending people's money, that's his job. The previous incumbents weren't very good at it at all.
Fercri Sakes says...
4. 20mph limits save lives. People are breaking the law and putting people in danger by going over this. They are ofetn the same people who think that cycling through a red light is a more dangerous menace to the populace although statistically incorrect.
Suggest you check the following link from Sky News today which says it makes things worse!!
https://news.sky.com

/story/1294728/20mph

-zone-road-crash-cas

ualties-rise-by-26-p

ercent
When Portsmouth went to 20mph, deaths and injuries rose.

If the money had been spent on education of pedestrians, how do you know that this wouldn't have been money better spent?
[quote][p][bold]taxidiy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ennuid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Green councillors say only a 5.9% council tax rise next spring will allow the council to meet a £25 million “funding shortfall”. Hardly surprising since they are the most wasteful, useless council we have ever had. All that money squandered on their vanity inspired cycle tracks, and dangerous, confusing and pointless changes to traffic arrangements, and now they are expecting more. The sooner they get kicked out the better.[/p][/quote]Cycle tracks are not vanity projects, they are supported nationally and internationally by all the main political parties as part of the solution to traffic problems in cities. Getting more people on bikes for short journeys where possible reduces congestion, pollution, as well as noise. Cycling also has health benefits, so it's better for the individual and reduces costs for the NHS. As for the standard Tory response that savings can be made without hurting services, just look at what is happening nationally to our health service, police, social services etc, which are all at breaking point (and as such softening us up for further privatisation presumably). Well said Jason for telling the truth.[/p][/quote]Going on about the health and other benefits of cycling is utterly bogus. The Old Shoreham Road cycle track has increased congestion and hardly anyone uses it. I dread to think how much it must have cost. Cycle paths where appropriate are indeed a good idea, think of the seafront for example and other places where they can be used to make cycling safer, but the green party in Brighton behaves as if anyone with a car is an enemy. And in terms of wasting money why is there a counting device on the London road as you come into Brighton that actually counts the number of cyclists who have gone by. Is that money well spent?! The whole 20mph this is verging on the insane as well, no one pays any attention to it. Vanity projects are an extremely accurate description of what these things are. I work in the private sector and would like to see some of the efficiencies that we have to deal with every day as a matter of course applied to the council. Jason Kitcat wouldn't know the truth if it punched him but he sure is good at spending other peoples money. No doubt Mr Kitcat will add the whole thing to his cv and we will see him on a national stage before too long. God help the nation, but at least he wont be mucking up Brighton and Hove before too long.[/p][/quote]1. People do use the Old Shoreham Road bicycle track. It connects two schools up with the national cycle route. 2. That road was always gridlocked. It's the New England Street/Preston Circus area that causes the gridlock. Changing to one lane has not had much of an effect. 3. The whole cycle route cost us the same as about half a house in that area. 4. 20mph limits save lives. People are breaking the law and putting people in danger by going over this. They are ofetn the same people who think that cycling through a red light is a more dangerous menace to the populace although statistically incorrect. 5. Yes, Mr Kitcat is good at spending people's money, that's his job. The previous incumbents weren't very good at it at all.[/p][/quote]Fercri Sakes says... 4. 20mph limits save lives. People are breaking the law and putting people in danger by going over this. They are ofetn the same people who think that cycling through a red light is a more dangerous menace to the populace although statistically incorrect. Suggest you check the following link from Sky News today which says it makes things worse!! https://news.sky.com /story/1294728/20mph -zone-road-crash-cas ualties-rise-by-26-p ercent[/p][/quote]When Portsmouth went to 20mph, deaths and injuries rose. If the money had been spent on education of pedestrians, how do you know that this wouldn't have been money better spent? Plantpot
  • Score: 5

2:33pm Sun 6 Jul 14

wippasnapper says...

This Unless W-A-N-K-E-R needs to leave B&H for good he is not welcome hear any longer trying to make use pay for all there ****-up’s
This Unless W-A-N-K-E-R needs to leave B&H for good he is not welcome hear any longer trying to make use pay for all there ****-up’s wippasnapper
  • Score: 3

7:20pm Sun 6 Jul 14

ghost bus driver says...

Lets face it the next administration is probably going to spend the whole of its first term sorting out some of the mess left by these commies.
Lets face it the next administration is probably going to spend the whole of its first term sorting out some of the mess left by these commies. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 4

8:14pm Sun 6 Jul 14

ghost bus driver says...

Incidentally, Someone I know posted a link to this video of the sea front etc. No Brighton Centre, Churchill Square when it was new, an intact West Pier. Great if you want a trip down memory lane

https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=0Qyl38XI
Se0&feature=youtu.be
Incidentally, Someone I know posted a link to this video of the sea front etc. No Brighton Centre, Churchill Square when it was new, an intact West Pier. Great if you want a trip down memory lane https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=0Qyl38XI Se0&feature=youtu.be ghost bus driver
  • Score: 1

4:11pm Mon 7 Jul 14

Benji.uk says...

Wow, some comments here!
How about we look outside of Brighton and see how others do it.
Windsor and Maidenhead have cut council tax for the last 5 years, this year is down another 2%.
here is a quote:-
Finance councilor Simon Dudley said: "We have a laser-like focus on finding efficiencies, cutting waste and developing smarter, leaner and more effective ways of working. We run our finances knowing that it is residents' money to spend prudently."
why can't Brighton have a bit more of that.
Wow, some comments here! How about we look outside of Brighton and see how others do it. Windsor and Maidenhead have cut council tax for the last 5 years, this year is down another 2%. here is a quote:- Finance councilor Simon Dudley said: "We have a laser-like focus on finding efficiencies, cutting waste and developing smarter, leaner and more effective ways of working. We run our finances knowing that it is residents' money to spend prudently." why can't Brighton have a bit more of that. Benji.uk
  • Score: 5

3:50pm Tue 8 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Going by the number of 'thumbs down' that I've got, it actually gives me quiet comfort that not many people seem to agree with me.

Regards

N. Hoogstraten
Going by the number of 'thumbs down' that I've got, it actually gives me quiet comfort that not many people seem to agree with me. Regards N. Hoogstraten theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 0

11:51pm Tue 8 Jul 14

ghost bus driver says...

We love Red Billy wrote:
H jars us very quiet.
I wonder if the H stands for Hugh...
[quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: H jars us very quiet.[/p][/quote]I wonder if the H stands for Hugh... ghost bus driver
  • 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