Tories and Labour try to amend budget for Brighton and Hove ahead of authority vote (From The Argus)

The greens promised before elected that they intended to raise council tax by the maximum they could, whenever they could. They have been true to their word, so we shouldn't complain.

Bob_The_Ferret wrote:
The greens promised before elected that they intended to raise council tax by the maximum they could, whenever they could. They have been true to their word, so we shouldn't complain.

Along with promising to shaft the paying residents in numerous and insidious ways too?

A couple of reminders to inform the debate on here.

Last year it was a Labour amendment which led to their being no council tax rise. We don't want to increase what people have to pay - at the same time as the bedroom tax and other benefit changes are hitting people - unless we have to.

The Conservative government is cutting tens of millions of pounds from Brighton and Hove City Councils grant - more of what the council spends comes from central government than council tax.

The council's costs rise with inflation. Any rise below the rate of inflation is a cut - inflation is around 2.5% at the moment.

The so called "freeze grant" from the Conservative government is around £1.2 million. The Conservative group amendment to qualify for this involves borrowing well over half a million pounds to qualify for it.

When the Conservatives were in power they put up council tax by 3.9% in 2008, 3.5% in 2009, and 2.5% in 2010, so a less than 2% rise this year is not excessive by their standards.

Gas, water and other privatised utility companies are putting up bills by well above inflation, to meet shareholder profit demands and pay for multi-million salaries, as well as "investing in service improvement". Why isn't the government doing more to keep their bills down, and why can private utilities invest in services but not local councils?

The Greens wanted to raise council tax by 3.5% - Labour would not have supported that. We are looking for a 50% cut in their Urban Biosphere project to help fund advice services for people on lower incomes, and we want to put money into helping the homeless, continuing the mobile library service and supporting children's centres.

A saving of just 0.1% was needed to avoid an increase of 2% in council tax bills. This isn't possible - yet there is still money to spend £1500 on a light for a bus stop, £1.3m on a nice-to-have road layout change and £1.5m for an unenforceable speed limit decrease

Very sad that Labour are have decided to support this increase. Money is tight for everyone and you would hope that Labour would be on the side of stretched families and workers. Instead they are supporting an increase in our tax burden

Fine, but walking around Brighton and Hove and seeing the Council feverishly widening pavements and painting '20' on roads in order to spend their budget before the next financial year sticks in the craw - hardly 'protecting essential services', don't you think?

Rest assured, if there wasn't a cap on Council Tax rises, Kitcat and his bunch of wastrals would put the taxes up far more.

NickBtn wrote:
A saving of just 0.1% was needed to avoid an increase of 2% in council tax bills. This isn't possible - yet there is still money to spend £1500 on a light for a bus stop, £1.3m on a nice-to-have road layout change and £1.5m for an unenforceable speed limit decrease

Very sad that Labour are have decided to support this increase. Money is tight for everyone and you would hope that Labour would be on the side of stretched families and workers. Instead they are supporting an increase in our tax burden

But that 0.1% saving is very difficult to do on top of the millions of savings the council has to make to offset cuts in the govt grant - if it were easy the Tories would have done it, instead they are borrowing half a million to get a million back.

We don't agree with all of the Green administration's spending, but we are very limited in what we can amend, change or reverse in budget amendments.

As I say earlier, we didn't want to put up c/tax when bills are going up, wages are shrinking and benefits are being cut, but the Govt has given us very little choice. If we could we would - as we did last year.

Still in denial about your party having bust the country then, Warren.

The council need the extra funds to meet the costs of all the Bull s..t they are throwing at the voters of Brighton.
They could not organise a drinking session in a brewry

Warren Morgan wrote:

NickBtn wrote:
A saving of just 0.1% was needed to avoid an increase of 2% in council tax bills. This isn't possible - yet there is still money to spend £1500 on a light for a bus stop, £1.3m on a nice-to-have road layout change and £1.5m for an unenforceable speed limit decrease

Very sad that Labour are have decided to support this increase. Money is tight for everyone and you would hope that Labour would be on the side of stretched families and workers. Instead they are supporting an increase in our tax burden

But that 0.1% saving is very difficult to do on top of the millions of savings the council has to make to offset cuts in the govt grant - if it were easy the Tories would have done it, instead they are borrowing half a million to get a million back.

We don't agree with all of the Green administration's spending, but we are very limited in what we can amend, change or reverse in budget amendments.

As I say earlier, we didn't want to put up c/tax when bills are going up, wages are shrinking and benefits are being cut, but the Govt has given us very little choice. If we could we would - as we did last year.

Just as long as you don't mind being reminded at the next election of your decision. You should have blocked the rise until the council agreed to stop the £1.3m+ redevelopment announced recently and to stop any expansion of the 20mph zone, and thus a further waste of money.

I'd already struck the Greens off my to vote for list at the next election ( despite having voted for them last time ), I'll now be striking Labour off that list as well.

Phani Tikkala wrote:
Still in denial about your party having bust the country then, Warren.

If the country is bust, how can the Conservative Government give millionaires a £100,000 tax cut in 37 days time?

Fight_Back wrote:

Warren Morgan wrote:

NickBtn wrote:
A saving of just 0.1% was needed to avoid an increase of 2% in council tax bills. This isn't possible - yet there is still money to spend £1500 on a light for a bus stop, £1.3m on a nice-to-have road layout change and £1.5m for an unenforceable speed limit decrease

Very sad that Labour are have decided to support this increase. Money is tight for everyone and you would hope that Labour would be on the side of stretched families and workers. Instead they are supporting an increase in our tax burden

But that 0.1% saving is very difficult to do on top of the millions of savings the council has to make to offset cuts in the govt grant - if it were easy the Tories would have done it, instead they are borrowing half a million to get a million back.

We don't agree with all of the Green administration's spending, but we are very limited in what we can amend, change or reverse in budget amendments.

As I say earlier, we didn't want to put up c/tax when bills are going up, wages are shrinking and benefits are being cut, but the Govt has given us very little choice. If we could we would - as we did last year.

Just as long as you don't mind being reminded at the next election of your decision. You should have blocked the rise until the council agreed to stop the £1.3m+ redevelopment announced recently and to stop any expansion of the 20mph zone, and thus a further waste of money.

I'd already struck the Greens off my to vote for list at the next election ( despite having voted for them last time ), I'll now be striking Labour off that list as well.

That's your choice, but as I say above, there is relatively little room for manoeuvre in the Budget, there are things we agree with and things we disagree with, but once the decision has been made and money committed some things can't be reversed.

Both opposition parties have to be guided by officers as to where savings can be made. If the additional £800.000 savings needed to freeze council tax were easy then the Tories would have cut other projects rather than seeking to borrow over £500,000 to get £1.2m back.

At the same time the Government is cutting the council's funding by £25 million, and the council is also having to find £1.7 million to offset the Government's cut to council tax benefit support.

Warren Morgan wrote:

Phani Tikkala wrote:
Still in denial about your party having bust the country then, Warren.

If the country is bust, how can the Conservative Government give millionaires a £100,000 tax cut in 37 days time?

Or take the poorest 2m workers out of the tax system?

Make hay while the sun shines "Greens", it won't last and you will be history and someone else will have to clean up your trash after you.

Warren Morgan wrote:

Phani Tikkala wrote:
Still in denial about your party having bust the country then, Warren.

If the country is bust, how can the Conservative Government give millionaires a £100,000 tax cut in 37 days time?

Ummm... here we go again. You're perpetuating the myth that "millionaires" are getting a £100,000 tax cut.

What you've said simply isn't true. I assume you'll be correcting your statement?

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/politics/reali
ty-check/2012/oct/02
/is-david-cameron-re
ally-going-to-give-e
ach-millionaire-a-40
-000-tax-cut

Warren Morgan wrote:

NickBtn wrote:
A saving of just 0.1% was needed to avoid an increase of 2% in council tax bills. This isn't possible - yet there is still money to spend £1500 on a light for a bus stop, £1.3m on a nice-to-have road layout change and £1.5m for an unenforceable speed limit decrease

Very sad that Labour are have decided to support this increase. Money is tight for everyone and you would hope that Labour would be on the side of stretched families and workers. Instead they are supporting an increase in our tax burden

But that 0.1% saving is very difficult to do on top of the millions of savings the council has to make to offset cuts in the govt grant - if it were easy the Tories would have done it, instead they are borrowing half a million to get a million back.

We don't agree with all of the Green administration's spending, but we are very limited in what we can amend, change or reverse in budget amendments.

As I say earlier, we didn't want to put up c/tax when bills are going up, wages are shrinking and benefits are being cut, but the Govt has given us very little choice. If we could we would - as we did last year.

The problem is that Labour has put the country in this state. It's like living your life on a credit card. If you live beyond your means and supplement your salary each month and can't pay the debts back, at some point you reach your card limit and you're stuffed. Not only can't you continue with your lifestyle, so you have to cut back, but you have to pay your debts as well.

Instead of pretending it hasn't happened, Labour politicians should be grovelling to the UK public for what they have done to us. The Tories are doing what Labour would have had to do, which is pay off the debts. Unfortunately someone has to suffer.

To add to my previous comments, taking Councillor Morgan's statement as truth regards the Tories borrowing £500k, it seems a sensible idea.

Borrow £500k to collect £1.2m thus producing an extra £700k.

What's not to like ?

The council need the extra funds to meet the costs of all the Bull s..t they are throwing at the voters of Brighton.
They could not organise a drinking session in a brewry

Plantpot wrote:

Warren Morgan wrote:

NickBtn wrote:
A saving of just 0.1% was needed to avoid an increase of 2% in council tax bills. This isn't possible - yet there is still money to spend £1500 on a light for a bus stop, £1.3m on a nice-to-have road layout change and £1.5m for an unenforceable speed limit decrease

Very sad that Labour are have decided to support this increase. Money is tight for everyone and you would hope that Labour would be on the side of stretched families and workers. Instead they are supporting an increase in our tax burden

But that 0.1% saving is very difficult to do on top of the millions of savings the council has to make to offset cuts in the govt grant - if it were easy the Tories would have done it, instead they are borrowing half a million to get a million back.

We don't agree with all of the Green administration's spending, but we are very limited in what we can amend, change or reverse in budget amendments.

As I say earlier, we didn't want to put up c/tax when bills are going up, wages are shrinking and benefits are being cut, but the Govt has given us very little choice. If we could we would - as we did last year.

The problem is that Labour has put the country in this state. It's like living your life on a credit card. If you live beyond your means and supplement your salary each month and can't pay the debts back, at some point you reach your card limit and you're stuffed. Not only can't you continue with your lifestyle, so you have to cut back, but you have to pay your debts as well.

Instead of pretending it hasn't happened, Labour politicians should be grovelling to the UK public for what they have done to us. The Tories are doing what Labour would have had to do, which is pay off the debts. Unfortunately someone has to suffer.

I repeat, if the country is in such a state, how can it afford to give each and every millionaire a £100k tax cut in a months time?

And if "borrowing on the credit card" is a bad idea, why do the Tory cllrs here want to borrow over £500k to fund their amendment?

Fight_Back wrote:
To add to my previous comments, taking Councillor Morgan's statement as truth regards the Tories borrowing £500k, it seems a sensible idea.

Borrow £500k to collect £1.2m thus producing an extra £700k.

What's not to like ?

Getting £700k back - when the Government is cutting £25million with the other hand?

Phani Tikkala wrote:

Warren Morgan wrote:

Phani Tikkala wrote:
Still in denial about your party having bust the country then, Warren.

If the country is bust, how can the Conservative Government give millionaires a £100,000 tax cut in 37 days time?

Ummm... here we go again. You're perpetuating the myth that "millionaires" are getting a £100,000 tax cut.

What you've said simply isn't true. I assume you'll be correcting your statement?

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/politics/reali

ty-check/2012/oct/02

/is-david-cameron-re

ally-going-to-give-e

ach-millionaire-a-40

-000-tax-cut

Income millionaires, not property millionaires: http://fullfact.org/
factchecks/Labour_Co
nference_Ed_Miliband
_tax_cut_millionaire
-28361

Warren Morgan wrote:

Phani Tikkala wrote:

Warren Morgan wrote:

Phani Tikkala wrote:
Still in denial about your party having bust the country then, Warren.

If the country is bust, how can the Conservative Government give millionaires a £100,000 tax cut in 37 days time?

Ummm... here we go again. You're perpetuating the myth that "millionaires" are getting a £100,000 tax cut.

What you've said simply isn't true. I assume you'll be correcting your statement?

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.guardian.


co.uk/politics/reali


ty-check/2012/oct/02


/is-david-cameron-re


ally-going-to-give-e


ach-millionaire-a-40


-000-tax-cut

Income millionaires, not property millionaires: http://fullfact.org/

factchecks/Labour_Co

nference_Ed_Miliband

_tax_cut_millionaire

-28361

From the OED:

"A person whose assets are worth at least a million pounds"

The Conservatives are well-intentioned but misguided in tabling an amendment that seeks to extend (reinstate) the Norton Road carpark public toilets to more than the current weekend-only access.

This public toilet lost its week-day opening in the 2012 budget. Since then, BHCC has brought the police into Hove Town Hall for a space-share of City Direct and provided office space upstairs as well.

Over the last year it has wrangled with its own staff about changes to Hove Town Hall. This includes locking out access to public toilets in the town hall from the City Direct area - which matters to people looking at planning material for any length of time.

They originally intended to lock the front doors to bar access to the public toilets by the public and have now relented on that.

If the Norton Road carpark toilets are re-opened weekdays, BHCC are likely to use it as an excuse to reintroduce their original plan to bar public access to its town hall loos unless there for Hove Centre or council meetings and to force people using City Direct to cross the road to use the car park toilet (as originally intended).

I have used that Norton Road loo ONCE and I was full of fear the whole time I was there. It is out of sight and I don't think it is a safe place for a loo.

I still find it amazing that people seem to think that councillors are making money or something out of the way they organise the budget. They're doing what they can to keep essential services running. I pay around £1700 a year in council tax. A 2% rise is £34 a year - less than £1 a week. Someone who is "under-occupying" their social housing is going have their benefit cut by at least 18% a week. What's the more iniquitous?

I think it is good that Labour put aside the chance of a cheap Argus headline to support a small rise (real terms cut) to support B&H, ok there may be some disagreement at the margins about spending priorities. I also enjoyed Warren's demolition in the Argus of the hidden Tory agenda to slash, burn and privatise services in B&H. It is time to run the Tories out of town!

I have to say that the council seems to work better now we have no single party in power than when we did!

musesboy wrote:
I still find it amazing that people seem to think that councillors are making money or something out of the way they organise the budget. They're doing what they can to keep essential services running. I pay around £1700 a year in council tax. A 2% rise is £34 a year - less than £1 a week. Someone who is "under-occupyin
g" their social housing is going have their benefit cut by at least 18% a week. What's the more iniquitous?

I like the cut of your jib museboy.
What i find disappointing is that for the first time those unfortunates claiming Disability Benefit will have to start paying Council Tax OUT of their benefit money.

dawind wrote:

musesboy wrote:
I still find it amazing that people seem to think that councillors are making money or something out of the way they organise the budget. They're doing what they can to keep essential services running. I pay around £1700 a year in council tax. A 2% rise is £34 a year - less than £1 a week. Someone who is "under-occupyin

g" their social housing is going have their benefit cut by at least 18% a week. What's the more iniquitous?

I like the cut of your jib museboy.
What i find disappointing is that for the first time those unfortunates claiming Disability Benefit will have to start paying Council Tax OUT of their benefit money.

I second Warrens comments about there must be some money about as reported this week the Tories are planning to give new nuclear power stations guaranteed subsidies for up to 40 years despite it being the most expensive electricity to produce and then there is the Trident missile replacement of £100 billion lifetime costs (though who are we supposed to aim the missiles at?).

Unfortunately poor people facing benefit cuts are not as influential as a few multinationals and wealthy tax dodgers.

Warren Morgan wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:
To add to my previous comments, taking Councillor Morgan's statement as truth regards the Tories borrowing £500k, it seems a sensible idea.

Borrow £500k to collect £1.2m thus producing an extra £700k.

What's not to like ?

Getting £700k back - when the Government is cutting £25million with the other hand?

And if the council don't borrow the £500k they are another £700k worse off. Have you been on the phone to George Osbourne for your economic maths by chance ?

Fight_Back wrote:

Warren Morgan wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:
To add to my previous comments, taking Councillor Morgan's statement as truth regards the Tories borrowing £500k, it seems a sensible idea.

Borrow £500k to collect £1.2m thus producing an extra £700k.

What's not to like ?

Getting £700k back - when the Government is cutting £25million with the other hand?

And if the council don't borrow the £500k they are another £700k worse off. Have you been on the phone to George Osbourne for your economic maths by chance ?

No, the £700k is covered by the below-inflation rise in council tax rather than borrowing and a one-off payment. The Tory govt is trying to persuade people that they should expect a 0% rise - a real terms cut - in their council tax every year. Unless inflation is 0% then what the council can afford to do is eroded year on year, even without massive reductions in government grant. Then, as in Barnet and as with the utilities, the private sector steps in and charges go up by above inflation increases every year to fund service improvements, excessive executive pay and increased shareholder profits. You have to decide who offers better value for money - the private sector or a democratically accountable local council.

Warren Morgan wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Warren Morgan wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:
To add to my previous comments, taking Councillor Morgan's statement as truth regards the Tories borrowing £500k, it seems a sensible idea.

Borrow £500k to collect £1.2m thus producing an extra £700k.

What's not to like ?

Getting £700k back - when the Government is cutting £25million with the other hand?

And if the council don't borrow the £500k they are another £700k worse off. Have you been on the phone to George Osbourne for your economic maths by chance ?

No, the £700k is covered by the below-inflation rise in council tax rather than borrowing and a one-off payment. The Tory govt is trying to persuade people that they should expect a 0% rise - a real terms cut - in their council tax every year. Unless inflation is 0% then what the council can afford to do is eroded year on year, even without massive reductions in government grant. Then, as in Barnet and as with the utilities, the private sector steps in and charges go up by above inflation increases every year to fund service improvements, excessive executive pay and increased shareholder profits. You have to decide who offers better value for money - the private sector or a democratically accountable local council.

It would appear that it matters not if it's the private sector or a democratically "accountable" local council. The former being close to impossible for voters to have a say on and the later very much likewise given your statement that there was little either Labour or the Tories could do DESPITE more people NOT voting Green than did vote Green.

There is something that stinks with local politics.

That said, having worked for a big outsourcer with many local authority accounts, councils of all colours have an inability to say what they really want and expect in a contract and always act surprised when they ask for a change and it costs MONEY. I guess it reflects the quality of councillors and council officials we have.

HJarrs wrote:
I think it is good that Labour put aside the chance of a cheap Argus headline to support a small rise (real terms cut) to support B&H, ok there may be some disagreement at the margins about spending priorities. I also enjoyed Warren's demolition in the Argus of the hidden Tory agenda to slash, burn and privatise services in B&H. It is time to run the Tories out of town!

I have to say that the council seems to work better now we have no single party in power than when we did!

I can't quite see how labour is "supporting B+H". Yes, the council will have more to spend but only at the cost of hardworking people who are struggling with inflation, little or no pay rises and other increasing bills for food, utilities and petrol.

Yes, we need council services. But do you really believe that the council is as efficient and effective as it could be? If so, why are there tens of millions of facebook views?! How are all the overworked council employees managing this? Why are there still vanity projects being undertaken? How can a single solar powered bus stop light cost £1500? I could go on.....

Warren Morgan wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Warren Morgan wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:
To add to my previous comments, taking Councillor Morgan's statement as truth regards the Tories borrowing £500k, it seems a sensible idea.

Borrow £500k to collect £1.2m thus producing an extra £700k.

What's not to like ?

Getting £700k back - when the Government is cutting £25million with the other hand?

And if the council don't borrow the £500k they are another £700k worse off. Have you been on the phone to George Osbourne for your economic maths by chance ?

No, the £700k is covered by the below-inflation rise in council tax rather than borrowing and a one-off payment. The Tory govt is trying to persuade people that they should expect a 0% rise - a real terms cut - in their council tax every year. Unless inflation is 0% then what the council can afford to do is eroded year on year, even without massive reductions in government grant. Then, as in Barnet and as with the utilities, the private sector steps in and charges go up by above inflation increases every year to fund service improvements, excessive executive pay and increased shareholder profits. You have to decide who offers better value for money - the private sector or a democratically accountable local council.

I should add that most people have had a 0% pay rise for the last few years, myself included. Infact our household income has dropped by 20%. So it doesn't seem unreasonable that a council tackles a 0% increase. Unfortunately it would appear that the Greens and now Labour don't live in the same world as the rest of us.

This is all small beer when the council, under any administration, could save many millions by merging its back office functions with those of other councils. They all do exactly the same things and it is absurd that they expensively maintain separate IT systems.

As for cuts, they've been minuscule so far and our national debt is still rising. That can't go on. We need fundamental change in the way all government is administered - including local - to make it affordable. The alternative is to go the way of Greece. If our current political masters can't do it, let's find people who can.

Simple economics, small state, low tax, everyone gets richer through the drip feed of normal people spending money they didn't have before.
The tories understand how to nurture wealth at source, labour and the greens only have ideas on how to spend it.
Warren Mitchell and our resident fool Hjarrs seem unpleasantly full of grand ideas on how to spend other peoples money that hasn't actually been earnt yet and at the same time have very little idea of where it all comes from in the first place.
You wouldn't put the likes of them in charge of a charity box.

nocando wrote:
Simple economics, small state, low tax, everyone gets richer through the drip feed of normal people spending money they didn't have before.
The tories understand how to nurture wealth at source, labour and the greens only have ideas on how to spend it.
Warren Mitchell and our resident fool Hjarrs seem unpleasantly full of grand ideas on how to spend other peoples money that hasn't actually been earnt yet and at the same time have very little idea of where it all comes from in the first place.
You wouldn't put the likes of them in charge of a charity box.

Agreed - lets put George Osborne in charge - oh no, he is, and what a mess he is making of it.

Or, as is suggested above - merge so-called "back office functions", preferably run by the efficent private sector - oh no, they did that in the West Country, and it's ended up costing more, and failing!

Get A4E in to provide security.

As for "everyone gets richer" - easy words, no proof to back them up. In fact every, and that is every, study, shows the exact opposite - meanwhile the weakest in society, go to the wall.

Am I a "bleeding heart liberal"? Well, not liberal, but the rest I admit to.

I just want a civilised, fair society - small thing to ask for, in my humble view!

nocando wrote:
Simple economics, small state, low tax, everyone gets richer through the drip feed of normal people spending money they didn't have before.
The tories understand how to nurture wealth at source, labour and the greens only have ideas on how to spend it.
Warren Mitchell and our resident fool Hjarrs seem unpleasantly full of grand ideas on how to spend other peoples money that hasn't actually been earnt yet and at the same time have very little idea of where it all comes from in the first place.
You wouldn't put the likes of them in charge of a charity box.

I don't think I've put forward any "grand ideas" here or elsewhere for expensive new projects, and I'd like to have seen no increase in council tax, but it's the Conservative government's cuts of £25m that is pushing up council tax, not out of control vanity spending.

You will find that social care services for older people and people with disabilities, education and children's services, and highways/roads/light
ing/refuse make up the vast majority of what the council spends - and costs there are rising.

Your "trickle down" economic model assumes the wealthy all earn their money rather than inherit it, and that "normal people" will prosper in an economy driven by maximum profit, minimum wages. When the benefit changes take effect, see how much money is taken out of the local economy and the effects that has on small/medium sized businesses.

And if you are going to have a pop, try and get my name right - not hard, it is printed on the screen in front of you...

The council is looking to spend millions on revamping the gardens in the middle of town. they are spending millions on a 20mph zone causing delays on buses more pollution and inconvenience to bus uses. They are spending three quarters of a million on a traveller site that is polluting the water supply for all of Brighton and Hove. Never mind everyone who pays council tax and drinks water will have to pay a bit more. Call themselves green, oh yes that's right. The dictionary version is 'a colour or someone who is naive or inexperienced'.

What is it with these lefties, the boat's sinking yet still they want to saddle the working population with yet more debt for supposed services that don't actually exist, just the lifestyles and pensions of those paid to deliver them.
Money talks, the lefties have spent ours yet still they shriek for more.
We're being scammed by these do gooders, the quicker the voting folk wise up to this, the more affordable life will become.

Doesn't matter whether people inherit their money or get off their backsides and earn it, the fact remains that the state has an entire industry devoted to ever more imaginitive ways of relieving them of it without actually providing anything of substance in return.
Big ideas on spending other peoples money but no idea how to earn it.
We'd be mugs to swallow your line Warren, time the likes of you took your feet off our throats. We've got livings to earn for our families, ourselves and the endless state dependents that you seem hell bent on encouraging.
Apologies for the name error, I can imagine being called Alf Garnet must be particularly upsetting for a right on metrosexual such as yourself.

the left's idealogy of tax and spend is unsustainable
Given their fondness for endless speeches about sustainable this, that and the other, there's a strong case for suggesting they're ever so slightly hypocritical.

nocando wrote:
the left's idealogy of tax and spend is unsustainable
Given their fondness for endless speeches about sustainable this, that and the other, there's a strong case for suggesting they're ever so slightly hypocritical.

Funny, after all that has happened in the last few years to demonstrate the devastating effects of laise fair free market economics, you can't see how misguided this is. This low tax, low regulation rubbish just seems to be an ideological veneer for powerful and rich dynasty builders to suck wealth from the rest of us. You just come over as someone who doesn't want to pay their fair share.

While I think Labour were a disappointment in power and were naive to listen to those that spout free market nonsense, they primarily came unstuck due to the collapse of the very system you propose, which resulted in lower tax receipts and a need to bail out the banks.

The biggest recipients of state aid are not the unemployed or disabled, it is those will large bank deposits and major corporations that are handed fat government backed contracts such as the nuclear power industry is negotiating.

If we could only recoup half of the money lost through tax avoidance there would be no budget deficit and us little people would not have to pay so much tax.

nocando wrote:
the left's idealogy of tax and spend is unsustainable
Given their fondness for endless speeches about sustainable this, that and the other, there's a strong case for suggesting they're ever so slightly hypocritical.

Funny, after all that has happened in the last few years to demonstrate the devastating effects of laise fair free market economics, you can't see how misguided this is. This low tax, low regulation rubbish just seems to be an ideological veneer for powerful and rich dynasty builders to suck wealth from the rest of us. You just come over as someone who doesn't want to pay their fair share.

While I think Labour were a disappointment in power and were naive to listen to those that spout free market nonsense, they primarily came unstuck due to the collapse of the very system you propose, which resulted in lower tax receipts and a need to bail out the banks.

The biggest recipients of state aid are not the unemployed or disabled, it is those will large bank deposits and major corporations that are handed fat government backed contracts such as the nuclear power industry is negotiating.

If we could only recoup half of the money lost through tax avoidance there would be no budget deficit and us little people would not have to pay so much tax.

Warren Morgan wrote:

nocando wrote:
Simple economics, small state, low tax, everyone gets richer through the drip feed of normal people spending money they didn't have before.
The tories understand how to nurture wealth at source, labour and the greens only have ideas on how to spend it.
Warren Mitchell and our resident fool Hjarrs seem unpleasantly full of grand ideas on how to spend other peoples money that hasn't actually been earnt yet and at the same time have very little idea of where it all comes from in the first place.
You wouldn't put the likes of them in charge of a charity box.

I don't think I've put forward any "grand ideas" here or elsewhere for expensive new projects, and I'd like to have seen no increase in council tax, but it's the Conservative government's cuts of £25m that is pushing up council tax, not out of control vanity spending.

You will find that social care services for older people and people with disabilities, education and children's services, and highways/roads/light

ing/refuse make up the vast majority of what the council spends - and costs there are rising.

Your "trickle down" economic model assumes the wealthy all earn their money rather than inherit it, and that "normal people" will prosper in an economy driven by maximum profit, minimum wages. When the benefit changes take effect, see how much money is taken out of the local economy and the effects that has on small/medium sized businesses.

And if you are going to have a pop, try and get my name right - not hard, it is printed on the screen in front of you...

"Not out of control vanity spending" ? Really ????

What about the £1.3m for recent city centre "improvements" or £1.5m for an unenforceable 20mph scheme ????

A total of nearly £3m that could be spent on the vulnerable. I guess you'll use the worn out phrase of "we have little influence over that" to try and deflect blame from the elected Labour councillors.

Major corporations employ people Hjarrs. People with jobs buy stuff and pay tax. That's how it works. Give over with your spite, envy and economic cluelessness for once will you?

HJarrs wrote:

nocando wrote: the left's idealogy of tax and spend is unsustainable Given their fondness for endless speeches about sustainable this, that and the other, there's a strong case for suggesting they're ever so slightly hypocritical.

Funny, after all that has happened in the last few years to demonstrate the devastating effects of laise fair free market economics, you can't see how misguided this is. This low tax, low regulation rubbish just seems to be an ideological veneer for powerful and rich dynasty builders to suck wealth from the rest of us. You just come over as someone who doesn't want to pay their fair share. While I think Labour were a disappointment in power and were naive to listen to those that spout free market nonsense, they primarily came unstuck due to the collapse of the very system you propose, which resulted in lower tax receipts and a need to bail out the banks. The biggest recipients of state aid are not the unemployed or disabled, it is those will large bank deposits and major corporations that are handed fat government backed contracts such as the nuclear power industry is negotiating. If we could only recoup half of the money lost through tax avoidance there would be no budget deficit and us little people would not have to pay so much tax.

Wasn't your hero privately educated, and what sort of education do their kids have. A different world me thinks.

We are legally obliged to pay for a bloated body of people who's sole preoccupation is how to make us pay more.
How do we get rid of these people?
Small state, low tax please.

george smith wrote:

HJarrs wrote:

nocando wrote: the left's idealogy of tax and spend is unsustainable Given their fondness for endless speeches about sustainable this, that and the other, there's a strong case for suggesting they're ever so slightly hypocritical.

Funny, after all that has happened in the last few years to demonstrate the devastating effects of laise fair free market economics, you can't see how misguided this is. This low tax, low regulation rubbish just seems to be an ideological veneer for powerful and rich dynasty builders to suck wealth from the rest of us. You just come over as someone who doesn't want to pay their fair share. While I think Labour were a disappointment in power and were naive to listen to those that spout free market nonsense, they primarily came unstuck due to the collapse of the very system you propose, which resulted in lower tax receipts and a need to bail out the banks. The biggest recipients of state aid are not the unemployed or disabled, it is those will large bank deposits and major corporations that are handed fat government backed contracts such as the nuclear power industry is negotiating. If we could only recoup half of the money lost through tax avoidance there would be no budget deficit and us little people would not have to pay so much tax.

Wasn't your hero privately educated, and what sort of education do their kids have. A different world me thinks.

1. I don't have heros
2. I don't agree that in the UK at there is need for private schools and think their influence is pernicious to the general wellbeing.
3. I am not actually bothered where people are educated on an individual basis, I treat as I find. Why should I be prejudiced where people were sent by their parents to school?

And for your information Hjarrs, I've paid my dues, I would object far less if they hadn't been spunked by a succession of snake oil salesmen who **** on my boots and tell me its raining.
If I have to pay then I expect to see value.

HJarrs wrote:

george smith wrote:

HJarrs wrote:

nocando wrote: the left's idealogy of tax and spend is unsustainable Given their fondness for endless speeches about sustainable this, that and the other, there's a strong case for suggesting they're ever so slightly hypocritical.

Funny, after all that has happened in the last few years to demonstrate the devastating effects of laise fair free market economics, you can't see how misguided this is. This low tax, low regulation rubbish just seems to be an ideological veneer for powerful and rich dynasty builders to suck wealth from the rest of us. You just come over as someone who doesn't want to pay their fair share. While I think Labour were a disappointment in power and were naive to listen to those that spout free market nonsense, they primarily came unstuck due to the collapse of the very system you propose, which resulted in lower tax receipts and a need to bail out the banks. The biggest recipients of state aid are not the unemployed or disabled, it is those will large bank deposits and major corporations that are handed fat government backed contracts such as the nuclear power industry is negotiating. If we could only recoup half of the money lost through tax avoidance there would be no budget deficit and us little people would not have to pay so much tax.

Wasn't your hero privately educated, and what sort of education do their kids have. A different world me thinks.

1. I don't have heros 2. I don't agree that in the UK at there is need for private schools and think their influence is pernicious to the general wellbeing. 3. I am not actually bothered where people are educated on an individual basis, I treat as I find. Why should I be prejudiced where people were sent by their parents to school?

What about those who privately educate their offspring and are in positions of influence over the state sector, can they be completely committed?

The biggest recipient of state aid are those with big bank balances and corporates HJarrs. Yes like the monopoly bus company in the city receiving grants from tax payers and being given huge swathes of highways for private use. This council has even funded a light up timetable for the company in one of its Green wards.
I find this state support for a profit making privately owned monopoly sinister.
You seem to be rather selective over which big corporates you find distasteful.
Personally the bus company should pay tolls for these routes and resurface these routes and also the money from tolls be given back to local people for reduced fares because its actually very expensive to make a few stops and the bus company has no competition or regulation over fare increases.
I'm waiting for your council to now grant it planning for a new depot offering more support.
Bring in competition and do it now before you spend anymore tax payers money lining the pockets of shareholders.

Cutting the lawn bowls pavilion and all but 2 of the 'rinks' on the Western Lawn in Hove is elder abuse in my books and shame on the Tories and shame on Labour for not seeking to reverse this cut.

Instead the Tories want 7 day public toilets instead of just weekends at the creepy and dangerous Norton Road carpark which would only encourage the Council to lock out access to the town hall toilets.

And Labour? It's all about the young innit...no older Labour voters I take it.

Labour Valerie. Gill Mitchell and Warren seems to be the Labour group. The rest are invisible and a total failure in opposition.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Labour Valerie. Gill Mitchell and Warren seems to be the Labour group. The rest are invisible and a total failure in opposition.

I very rarely defend politicians, in fact this may be a first for me.

Each Group has its spokespersons so they will be more prominent than the "backbenchers".

However, this suggests they do very little, or nothing, as locally elected Councillors. For many of them that I know, this is not the case - they work very hard, mostly in their own time for their constituents.On politics I probably do not agree with them at all (especially the "blue" ones) but whatever Party they belong to, the committment is 100%.

My own MP responds to any matter I raise, without fail, and to other people I know of.

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Cutting the lawn bowls pavilion and all but 2 of the 'rinks' on the Western Lawn in Hove is elder abuse in my books and shame on the Tories and shame on Labour for not seeking to reverse this cut.

Instead the Tories want 7 day public toilets instead of just weekends at the creepy and dangerous Norton Road carpark which would only encourage the Council to lock out access to the town hall toilets.

And Labour? It's all about the young innit...no older Labour voters I take it.

Valerie I'd very much like to have kept all bowling greens open (my grandparents were keen bowls players), but from what we have been told - and no bowls club members contested this at committee - many clubs are losing members and activity is falling. Better to spend our increasingly limited cash on keeping greens open and clubs going where there is demand.

Warren Morgan wrote:
A couple of reminders to inform the debate on here. Last year it was a Labour amendment which led to their being no council tax rise. We don't want to increase what people have to pay - at the same time as the bedroom tax and other benefit changes are hitting people - unless we have to. The Conservative government is cutting tens of millions of pounds from Brighton and Hove City Councils grant - more of what the council spends comes from central government than council tax. The council's costs rise with inflation. Any rise below the rate of inflation is a cut - inflation is around 2.5% at the moment. The so called "freeze grant" from the Conservative government is around £1.2 million. The Conservative group amendment to qualify for this involves borrowing well over half a million pounds to qualify for it. When the Conservatives were in power they put up council tax by 3.9% in 2008, 3.5% in 2009, and 2.5% in 2010, so a less than 2% rise this year is not excessive by their standards. Gas, water and other privatised utility companies are putting up bills by well above inflation, to meet shareholder profit demands and pay for multi-million salaries, as well as "investing in service improvement". Why isn't the government doing more to keep their bills down, and why can private utilities invest in services but not local councils? The Greens wanted to raise council tax by 3.5% - Labour would not have supported that. We are looking for a 50% cut in their Urban Biosphere project to help fund advice services for people on lower incomes, and we want to put money into helping the homeless, continuing the mobile library service and supporting children's centres.

Shame you colluded with the Tories last year to free council tax and increase cuts. Something a load of Tory and Labour councils last year did not do recognising it as a government con. I am a Labour voter and have never voted Green and am not intending to but the childish hatred of the Greens by the Labour group is counter productive. That's what I told the last labour cancasser who visited me recently

Warren Morgan wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Warren Morgan wrote:

NickBtn wrote:
A saving of just 0.1% was needed to avoid an increase of 2% in council tax bills. This isn't possible - yet there is still money to spend £1500 on a light for a bus stop, £1.3m on a nice-to-have road layout change and £1.5m for an unenforceable speed limit decrease

Very sad that Labour are have decided to support this increase. Money is tight for everyone and you would hope that Labour would be on the side of stretched families and workers. Instead they are supporting an increase in our tax burden

But that 0.1% saving is very difficult to do on top of the millions of savings the council has to make to offset cuts in the govt grant - if it were easy the Tories would have done it, instead they are borrowing half a million to get a million back.

We don't agree with all of the Green administration's spending, but we are very limited in what we can amend, change or reverse in budget amendments.

As I say earlier, we didn't want to put up c/tax when bills are going up, wages are shrinking and benefits are being cut, but the Govt has given us very little choice. If we could we would - as we did last year.

Just as long as you don't mind being reminded at the next election of your decision. You should have blocked the rise until the council agreed to stop the £1.3m+ redevelopment announced recently and to stop any expansion of the 20mph zone, and thus a further waste of money.

I'd already struck the Greens off my to vote for list at the next election ( despite having voted for them last time ), I'll now be striking Labour off that list as well.

That's your choice, but as I say above, there is relatively little room for manoeuvre in the Budget, there are things we agree with and things we disagree with, but once the decision has been made and money committed some things can't be reversed.

Both opposition parties have to be guided by officers as to where savings can be made. If the additional £800.000 savings needed to freeze council tax were easy then the Tories would have cut other projects rather than seeking to borrow over £500,000 to get £1.2m back.

At the same time the Government is cutting the council's funding by £25 million, and the council is also having to find £1.7 million to offset the Government's cut to council tax benefit support.

Warren - how can you be guided by the officers?! Look at the recent news on their salaries. Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

This is a terrifying acknowledgement, and reveals a core weakness in local politics. Surely, you should be looking for savings yourselves - as should the Tories.

Delighted to see you're calling for a 50% reduction in the urban biosphere bid money though, so this can be used to help people who need assistance, rather than fanning the egos of those involved in the bid, which seems to be the only purpose behind it.

ourcoalition wrote:

nocando wrote:
Simple economics, small state, low tax, everyone gets richer through the drip feed of normal people spending money they didn't have before.
The tories understand how to nurture wealth at source, labour and the greens only have ideas on how to spend it.
Warren Mitchell and our resident fool Hjarrs seem unpleasantly full of grand ideas on how to spend other peoples money that hasn't actually been earnt yet and at the same time have very little idea of where it all comes from in the first place.
You wouldn't put the likes of them in charge of a charity box.

Agreed - lets put George Osborne in charge - oh no, he is, and what a mess he is making of it.

Or, as is suggested above - merge so-called "back office functions", preferably run by the efficent private sector - oh no, they did that in the West Country, and it's ended up costing more, and failing!

Get A4E in to provide security.

As for "everyone gets richer" - easy words, no proof to back them up. In fact every, and that is every, study, shows the exact opposite - meanwhile the weakest in society, go to the wall.

Am I a "bleeding heart liberal"? Well, not liberal, but the rest I admit to.

I just want a civilised, fair society - small thing to ask for, in my humble view!

And is your heart bleeding? I think you'll find it would if you ripped it out.