Warning over new Government cuts figure

The Argus: Warning over new Government cuts figure Warning over new Government cuts figure

Cuts in Government funding are more severe than figures reveal, Brighton and Hove’s council leader has warned.

The latest announcement of cuts from Westminster would see Brighton and Hove, Eastbourne and Worthing councils all face above average funding cuts leaving bean-counters to go back to the drawing board ahead of next year's budgets.

But Jason Kitcat, Brighton and Hove City Council leader, said the Government issued figures were “misleading”

as they dido not include all money available to local authorities – and the real impact of cuts on town halls was far more severe.

The coalition this week announced councils would face an average of 2.9% cuts in their spending power.

The figure, which takes into account council tax, government grants, new homes bonuses and some NHS funding, varies across local authorities.

Nine Sussex councils were handed cuts below the national average including Rother, Arun, Lewes, East Sussex, West Sussex, Wealden, Chichester, Horsham and Mid Sussex.

However Crawley (-5.1%), Eastbourne (-4.4%), Hastings (-4.2%), Worthing (- 3.4%) and Brighton and Hove (-3.4%) were all slapped with cuts above the average.

Coun Kitcat said the latest announcement would see the council remain one of the worst cut authorities in the country.

He added that the Government figure was misleading with the actual reduction on its spending representing up to 19%.

According to Westminster, the authority would see a reduction of £8.8million in its spending power – working out at £70 less for each household.

Coun Kitcat said: “We are working as hard as possible to make sure services carry on as best as possible and we have been fairly successful in that so far.

“But we will have to wait and see how this will play out in the budget. It’s a case of watch this space.”

Paul Yallop, leader of Worthing Borough Council, said local authorities in the south would feel the impact more than those in the north.

He said: “Councils in the north traditionally had a lot more spending power so the cuts haven’t hit them as hard.

However, it is difficult for us because we never had much meat on the bone.

“It is slightly better than the worst case scenario we had in place for the budget, so I guess we should be pleased in that respect.”

Eastbourne Borough Council faces a cut of £747,000 – 4.4% of their total.

Leader of the council, David Tutt, said: “I would prefer if they stopped hitting local government so hard. I think we have bore the brunt of all the Government cuts since the general election.

“It’s about time central government departments took a hit.

 

COUNCIL % of budget cut
Crawley -5.1%
Eastbourne -4.4%
Hastings -4.2%
Worthing -3.4%
Brighton and Hove -3.4%
Rother -2.8%
Arun -2.5%
Lewes -2.0%
East Sussex -1.5%
West Sussex -0.3%
Wealden 0.6%
Chichester 1.2%
Horsham 2.0%
Mid Sussex 2.8%

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:36am Fri 20 Dec 13

kmhove says...

But the Council can afford to tie up 5 1/2 hours of "important" councillor's time at a kangaroo court trying her for the use of unacceptable (to them) words! I do have the feeling that their time could have been spent more productively and usefully in these austere times.
But the Council can afford to tie up 5 1/2 hours of "important" councillor's time at a kangaroo court trying her for the use of unacceptable (to them) words! I do have the feeling that their time could have been spent more productively and usefully in these austere times. kmhove

10:36am Fri 20 Dec 13

Tallywhacker says...

Good. I have always thought there was a problem where a towns biggest employer was its own council.
Good. I have always thought there was a problem where a towns biggest employer was its own council. Tallywhacker

10:43am Fri 20 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

Let's see :

£1.5m of the 20mph zone
£800,000 on a roundabout
God knows what on Lewes Road
A gollywog enquiry
A skip purchased as a bit or art work
Edward Street being converted to a single lane

All in a time when the council should be saving money yet they seem able to find money when they want to.

I guarantee I could balance the budget for Kitcat - his councillors nor the council officers would like it but it is entirely possible.
Let's see : £1.5m of the 20mph zone £800,000 on a roundabout God knows what on Lewes Road A gollywog enquiry A skip purchased as a bit or art work Edward Street being converted to a single lane All in a time when the council should be saving money yet they seem able to find money when they want to. I guarantee I could balance the budget for Kitcat - his councillors nor the council officers would like it but it is entirely possible. Fight_Back

10:53am Fri 20 Dec 13

Hove Actually says...

And we believe every word the comes out of Kitcraps mouth as he never lies to the people of Brighton & Hove....about his "consultations" about parking or his disconnected going no where 2 metre cycle lanes
And we believe every word the comes out of Kitcraps mouth as he never lies to the people of Brighton & Hove....about his "consultations" about parking or his disconnected going no where 2 metre cycle lanes Hove Actually

10:58am Fri 20 Dec 13

Crystal Ball says...

No-one knows if that picture is actually Kitwat as it's the only one the Schmargus seems to have and he's never seen out in daylight.

Rumour has it the basement of Kings House is filled with earth from his motherland and a wooden box...
No-one knows if that picture is actually Kitwat as it's the only one the Schmargus seems to have and he's never seen out in daylight. Rumour has it the basement of Kings House is filled with earth from his motherland and a wooden box... Crystal Ball

11:37am Fri 20 Dec 13

pachallis says...

@Jason Kitkat - Strange that many other councils in the area are absorbing the cuts and not increasing rates for 2014?

You, on the other hand, blubber on like an angst teenanger complaining of it "being unfair", whilst still wasting money on vanity projects and destroying the local economy on the grounds of "improving sustainability" and "focusing on the needs of minorities".

So dropping charges on council car parks around Christmas was bad for the council and good for business?

Can you justify the real value to Brighton and Hove of having gender neutral toilets and having the ability to enter Mx on forms for the gender-undecided?

if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You are totally out of your depth and an embarrassment to the council and the residents. I hope you and Mrs. Kitkat have got sufficient business lined up in your private IT company for when May 2015 comes along.
@Jason Kitkat - Strange that many other councils in the area are absorbing the cuts and not increasing rates for 2014? You, on the other hand, blubber on like an angst teenanger complaining of it "being unfair", whilst still wasting money on vanity projects and destroying the local economy on the grounds of "improving sustainability" and "focusing on the needs of minorities". So dropping charges on council car parks around Christmas was bad for the council and good for business? Can you justify the real value to Brighton and Hove of having gender neutral toilets and having the ability to enter Mx on forms for the gender-undecided? if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You are totally out of your depth and an embarrassment to the council and the residents. I hope you and Mrs. Kitkat have got sufficient business lined up in your private IT company for when May 2015 comes along. pachallis

11:45am Fri 20 Dec 13

gheese77 says...

20 mph limits and other transport schemes come from a separate government transport grant
So posters who believe that is the root of the councils financial problems need to think again
The real issue is the cuts to all local authorities grants nationwide
20 mph limits and other transport schemes come from a separate government transport grant So posters who believe that is the root of the councils financial problems need to think again The real issue is the cuts to all local authorities grants nationwide gheese77

11:57am Fri 20 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government.

Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to:
Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated.
They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges.
Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers.
The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme.

So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not!
Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government. Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to: Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated. They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges. Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers. The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme. So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not! mimseycal

1:02pm Fri 20 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

Having followed golliwog-gate, I can immediately see where some cuts can be made without any loss to public services.
Having followed golliwog-gate, I can immediately see where some cuts can be made without any loss to public services. thevoiceoftruth

2:19pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

gheese77 wrote:
20 mph limits and other transport schemes come from a separate government transport grant
So posters who believe that is the root of the councils financial problems need to think again
The real issue is the cuts to all local authorities grants nationwide
Government grant you say ? I'm assuming you think the government have a money tree in the 10 Downing St garden ? Where else do you think that money comes from ?
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: 20 mph limits and other transport schemes come from a separate government transport grant So posters who believe that is the root of the councils financial problems need to think again The real issue is the cuts to all local authorities grants nationwide[/p][/quote]Government grant you say ? I'm assuming you think the government have a money tree in the 10 Downing St garden ? Where else do you think that money comes from ? Fight_Back

2:30pm Fri 20 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

Fight_Back wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
20 mph limits and other transport schemes come from a separate government transport grant
So posters who believe that is the root of the councils financial problems need to think again
The real issue is the cuts to all local authorities grants nationwide
Government grant you say ? I'm assuming you think the government have a money tree in the 10 Downing St garden ? Where else do you think that money comes from ?
No ... no tree. However the government does have a huge drain on its resources due to its tax cuts, loopholes and other incidentals it grants its bankrollers, multinational corporations, the City and big Finance.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: 20 mph limits and other transport schemes come from a separate government transport grant So posters who believe that is the root of the councils financial problems need to think again The real issue is the cuts to all local authorities grants nationwide[/p][/quote]Government grant you say ? I'm assuming you think the government have a money tree in the 10 Downing St garden ? Where else do you think that money comes from ?[/p][/quote]No ... no tree. However the government does have a huge drain on its resources due to its tax cuts, loopholes and other incidentals it grants its bankrollers, multinational corporations, the City and big Finance. mimseycal

3:14pm Fri 20 Dec 13

pachallis says...

mimseycal wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
20 mph limits and other transport schemes come from a separate government transport grant
So posters who believe that is the root of the councils financial problems need to think again
The real issue is the cuts to all local authorities grants nationwide
Government grant you say ? I'm assuming you think the government have a money tree in the 10 Downing St garden ? Where else do you think that money comes from ?
No ... no tree. However the government does have a huge drain on its resources due to its tax cuts, loopholes and other incidentals it grants its bankrollers, multinational corporations, the City and big Finance.
@mimseycal - possible similar to the drain caused by unemployables (i.e. those who choose not to work and live off the state); those claiming disability/unemploym
ent benefit and still working; and those supporting the "cash economy" to avoid paying VAT/income tax?

And who do you think employs large numbers of people, pays them, and their wealth is used to buy products and support pension funds? Maybe multi-nationals, big business, the City and big Finance?

Of course the left-wing greens don't concern themselves with this - they just screw ratepayers, screw visitors, and screw local businesses to support their idealistic policies and then blame the government and "big business" for their amateur ineptness.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: 20 mph limits and other transport schemes come from a separate government transport grant So posters who believe that is the root of the councils financial problems need to think again The real issue is the cuts to all local authorities grants nationwide[/p][/quote]Government grant you say ? I'm assuming you think the government have a money tree in the 10 Downing St garden ? Where else do you think that money comes from ?[/p][/quote]No ... no tree. However the government does have a huge drain on its resources due to its tax cuts, loopholes and other incidentals it grants its bankrollers, multinational corporations, the City and big Finance.[/p][/quote]@mimseycal - possible similar to the drain caused by unemployables (i.e. those who choose not to work and live off the state); those claiming disability/unemploym ent benefit and still working; and those supporting the "cash economy" to avoid paying VAT/income tax? And who do you think employs large numbers of people, pays them, and their wealth is used to buy products and support pension funds? Maybe multi-nationals, big business, the City and big Finance? Of course the left-wing greens don't concern themselves with this - they just screw ratepayers, screw visitors, and screw local businesses to support their idealistic policies and then blame the government and "big business" for their amateur ineptness. pachallis

3:45pm Fri 20 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

@ .pachallis 3:14pm Fri 20 Dec 13

" ... possible similar to the drain caused by unemployables ..."

Hardly. In fact not even close to similar. To put it in context Benefit errors cost 1 million daily. Tax avoidance and evasion costs 260 million a day. Nearly a trillion goes in 'welfare benefits' to the financial industry.

In addition it is generally held that on average about £5.5bn of benefits that older people are entitled to go unclaimed – including Council Tax Benefit, Housing Benefit and Pension Credit. Further, the governments' own Revenue & Customs revealed that around £5bn of working tax credit and child tax credit goes unclaimed annually, bringing the total of money that fails to reach those in need to £13bn”.

In short nearly a trillion goes in 'welfare benefits' to the financial industry. So I repeat ... the social benefit drain is not even close to the Tax Evasion by big finance.

By why argue with the ideologically myopic. Much better to ignore the facts and go for the sound bites ;-)
@ .pachallis 3:14pm Fri 20 Dec 13 " ... possible similar to the drain caused by unemployables ..." Hardly. In fact not even close to similar. To put it in context Benefit errors cost 1 million daily. Tax avoidance and evasion costs 260 million a day. Nearly a trillion goes in 'welfare benefits' to the financial industry. In addition it is generally held that on average about £5.5bn of benefits that older people are entitled to go unclaimed – including Council Tax Benefit, Housing Benefit and Pension Credit. Further, the governments' own Revenue & Customs revealed that around £5bn of working tax credit and child tax credit goes unclaimed annually, bringing the total of money that fails to reach those in need to £13bn”. In short nearly a trillion goes in 'welfare benefits' to the financial industry. So I repeat ... the social benefit drain is not even close to the Tax Evasion by big finance. By why argue with the ideologically myopic. Much better to ignore the facts and go for the sound bites ;-) mimseycal

4:47pm Fri 20 Dec 13

pachallis says...

@mimseycal - love to know where you get your "facts" from or precisely what they mean.

So tax avoidance and evasion is £100bn per year. Avoidance is legal, evasion is not - who is doing the evasion and how much is this portion?

Please define the £1000bn that goes to the Finance industry? Is this tax breaks to encourage business, or is real money - £2000 for every person in the UK? Is this legal financial support, or illegal use of tax loopholes?

I assume this is legal support to encourage business development as the entire black economy of the UK is only estimated to be £160bn according to The Independent.

How do you make £13bn not going to the needy? £5.5bn+£5bn = £10.5bn - not £13bn?

So are you saying that the £10.5bn should be given to local governments or should more effort be given to make sure those who deserve it get it?

I'm putting some of the blame on the "black economy". I'm also after the benefit cheats - not those who really deserve it. I'm not sure what you are actually blaming?

You were the one blaming the drop in funding to local councils on money "given" to big business. I think, perhaps, you are the one that needs to verify their "facts" rather than me.
@mimseycal - love to know where you get your "facts" from or precisely what they mean. So tax avoidance and evasion is £100bn per year. Avoidance is legal, evasion is not - who is doing the evasion and how much is this portion? Please define the £1000bn that goes to the Finance industry? Is this tax breaks to encourage business, or is real money - £2000 for every person in the UK? Is this legal financial support, or illegal use of tax loopholes? I assume this is legal support to encourage business development as the entire black economy of the UK is only estimated to be £160bn according to The Independent. How do you make £13bn not going to the needy? £5.5bn+£5bn = £10.5bn - not £13bn? So are you saying that the £10.5bn should be given to local governments or should more effort be given to make sure those who deserve it get it? I'm putting some of the blame on the "black economy". I'm also after the benefit cheats - not those who really deserve it. I'm not sure what you are actually blaming? You were the one blaming the drop in funding to local councils on money "given" to big business. I think, perhaps, you are the one that needs to verify their "facts" rather than me. pachallis

10:05pm Fri 20 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

Oops ... sorry, me bad ... that was a typo and should have read 8bn.

In reality the Benefit bill for the working age unemployed (the shirkers according to Cameron and Co.) is minimal. Jobseekers' allowance is actually one of the smaller benefits - £4.91bn in 2011-12 again, Governments own figures

Aside from state pensions, most of the welfare bill is spent on working families. Those same working families for which large bribes are being paid by central government to 'create' so called jobs? Which you claim justifies the drain that tax loopholes and evasion that our government allow? So not only are our government bribing big business to 'create' employment, the employment so created pays so badly that our government has to top up the income for those employed families.
Oops ... sorry, me bad ... that was a typo and should have read 8bn. In reality the Benefit bill for the working age unemployed (the shirkers according to Cameron and Co.) is minimal. Jobseekers' allowance is actually one of the smaller benefits - £4.91bn in 2011-12 again, Governments own figures Aside from state pensions, most of the welfare bill is spent on working families. Those same working families for which large bribes are being paid by central government to 'create' so called jobs? Which you claim justifies the drain that tax loopholes and evasion that our government allow? So not only are our government bribing big business to 'create' employment, the employment so created pays so badly that our government has to top up the income for those employed families. mimseycal

10:36pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ourcoalition says...

Whilst in the real world.........people just made redundant through no fault of their own, are deemed "welfare scroungers" by the Government; my daughter in Nottingham, after hundreds of job applications and interviews, manages after nearly 2 years on the dole, to get full time work, but has no money at all for the 4 weeks until her first pay packet (the "transition" money was abolished last April) - needless to say she is 10p above the minimum wage on her hourly rate; those who "defraud" the system, account, according to the DWP's own figures, for 0.7 of the total budget - less than one person in 100 claimants - hardly the "news" you read in the Mail, or Express, or hear from that nice man, Duncan Smith, who habitually lies in Parliament.

Or the Home Carers in our City, paid minimum wage, but only when they are with clients, not in between visits, who use their own cars without pay for mileage, and on and on.

This is the country we are rapidly becoming - civilised? No, sad and mean, and most of all uncaring.
Whilst in the real world.........people just made redundant through no fault of their own, are deemed "welfare scroungers" by the Government; my daughter in Nottingham, after hundreds of job applications and interviews, manages after nearly 2 years on the dole, to get full time work, but has no money at all for the 4 weeks until her first pay packet (the "transition" money was abolished last April) - needless to say she is 10p above the minimum wage on her hourly rate; those who "defraud" the system, account, according to the DWP's own figures, for 0.7 of the total budget - less than one person in 100 claimants - hardly the "news" you read in the Mail, or Express, or hear from that nice man, Duncan Smith, who habitually lies in Parliament. Or the Home Carers in our City, paid minimum wage, but only when they are with clients, not in between visits, who use their own cars without pay for mileage, and on and on. This is the country we are rapidly becoming - civilised? No, sad and mean, and most of all uncaring. ourcoalition

10:57pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

In the meantime the posh folk of Preston Park get a light up bus timetable paid for by the council to help them use the privately owned profit making monopoly bus service. Or maybe the home careers could swap their cars for £20,000 electric ones so they can plug into the unused electric car charging points, or maybe they could cycle along the £6 million Lewes Road bike lane which already existed for more than a decade and could have been installed by just closing the inside lane to traffic saving the money.
Or how about the money spent on bringing sheep to the city.
For goodness sake, this city is about creating Islington by sea, the greens don't want the frail, sick or poor here. Jason, try going on a course to learn humility none humanity. You are nearer to the Tories that you can ever imagine.
In the meantime the posh folk of Preston Park get a light up bus timetable paid for by the council to help them use the privately owned profit making monopoly bus service. Or maybe the home careers could swap their cars for £20,000 electric ones so they can plug into the unused electric car charging points, or maybe they could cycle along the £6 million Lewes Road bike lane which already existed for more than a decade and could have been installed by just closing the inside lane to traffic saving the money. Or how about the money spent on bringing sheep to the city. For goodness sake, this city is about creating Islington by sea, the greens don't want the frail, sick or poor here. Jason, try going on a course to learn humility none humanity. You are nearer to the Tories that you can ever imagine. Maxwell's Ghost

1:09am Sat 21 Dec 13

HJarrs says...

mimseycal wrote:
Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government.

Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to:
Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated.
They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges.
Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers.
The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme.

So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not!
While I admire your radicalism, I think you miss the fact that the Greens do not have a majority on the council. The Labour Party councillors would not be allowed to support such ideas by their executive as it would not play well with the Daily Mail.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government. Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to: Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated. They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges. Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers. The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme. So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not![/p][/quote]While I admire your radicalism, I think you miss the fact that the Greens do not have a majority on the council. The Labour Party councillors would not be allowed to support such ideas by their executive as it would not play well with the Daily Mail. HJarrs

8:13am Sat 21 Dec 13

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

HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government.

Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to:
Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated.
They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges.
Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers.
The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme.

So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not!
While I admire your radicalism, I think you miss the fact that the Greens do not have a majority on the council. The Labour Party councillors would not be allowed to support such ideas by their executive as it would not play well with the Daily Mail.
Yeah Mimseycal

Stick that where the sun don't shine.

Back to our policy of creating Brighton ghetto. We have congestion to create through more bus lanes and cycle paths and all the disruption this kind of build creates.

Here's to an even more unpleasant time for all the working tax payers in Brighton in 2014
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government. Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to: Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated. They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges. Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers. The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme. So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not![/p][/quote]While I admire your radicalism, I think you miss the fact that the Greens do not have a majority on the council. The Labour Party councillors would not be allowed to support such ideas by their executive as it would not play well with the Daily Mail.[/p][/quote]Yeah Mimseycal Stick that where the sun don't shine. Back to our policy of creating Brighton ghetto. We have congestion to create through more bus lanes and cycle paths and all the disruption this kind of build creates. Here's to an even more unpleasant time for all the working tax payers in Brighton in 2014 I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

9:09am Sat 21 Dec 13

Bt'n-breezy says...

ERIC PICKLES MP and his Department have provided 200 ways in which councils could save money (article in The Daily Telegraph). If our council looked into all these possibilities would it be the case that enough money would be freed up to enable the council to do more things? Try it first; judge it later.
ERIC PICKLES MP and his Department have provided 200 ways in which councils could save money (article in The Daily Telegraph). If our council looked into all these possibilities would it be the case that enough money would be freed up to enable the council to do more things? Try it first; judge it later. Bt'n-breezy

9:10am Sat 21 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government.

Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to:
Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated.
They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges.
Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers.
The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme.

So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not!
While I admire your radicalism, I think you miss the fact that the Greens do not have a majority on the council. The Labour Party councillors would not be allowed to support such ideas by their executive as it would not play well with the Daily Mail.
Kitcat is leader of this council. He keeps reminding us of this fact every time his bland visage pops up.

I know he isn't a majority (thank the saints and all who sail in her) but has he even tried?

As for radicalism ... well, you may think it radical to expect to hold your elected representatives to account. I just think it is good practice ;-)
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government. Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to: Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated. They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges. Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers. The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme. So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not![/p][/quote]While I admire your radicalism, I think you miss the fact that the Greens do not have a majority on the council. The Labour Party councillors would not be allowed to support such ideas by their executive as it would not play well with the Daily Mail.[/p][/quote]Kitcat is leader of this council. He keeps reminding us of this fact every time his bland visage pops up. I know he isn't a majority (thank the saints and all who sail in her) but has he even tried? As for radicalism ... well, you may think it radical to expect to hold your elected representatives to account. I just think it is good practice ;-) mimseycal

1:32pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Plantpot says...

gheese77 wrote:
20 mph limits and other transport schemes come from a separate government transport grant
So posters who believe that is the root of the councils financial problems need to think again
The real issue is the cuts to all local authorities grants nationwide
Can you confirm that each of these projects has been paid for exclusvely by central govt., and that nothing has come from the B&HCC budget? I was under the impression the council always paid a proportion. BTW, all government money comes from the taxpayer, grant or not.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: 20 mph limits and other transport schemes come from a separate government transport grant So posters who believe that is the root of the councils financial problems need to think again The real issue is the cuts to all local authorities grants nationwide[/p][/quote]Can you confirm that each of these projects has been paid for exclusvely by central govt., and that nothing has come from the B&HCC budget? I was under the impression the council always paid a proportion. BTW, all government money comes from the taxpayer, grant or not. Plantpot

1:33pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Plantpot says...

HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government.

Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to:
Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated.
They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges.
Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers.
The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme.

So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not!
While I admire your radicalism, I think you miss the fact that the Greens do not have a majority on the council. The Labour Party councillors would not be allowed to support such ideas by their executive as it would not play well with the Daily Mail.
As soon as you mention the Daily Mail, you lose even more credibility.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government. Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to: Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated. They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges. Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers. The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme. So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not![/p][/quote]While I admire your radicalism, I think you miss the fact that the Greens do not have a majority on the council. The Labour Party councillors would not be allowed to support such ideas by their executive as it would not play well with the Daily Mail.[/p][/quote]As soon as you mention the Daily Mail, you lose even more credibility. Plantpot

7:34pm Sat 21 Dec 13

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

Plantpot wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government.

Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to:
Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated.
They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges.
Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers.
The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme.

So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not!
While I admire your radicalism, I think you miss the fact that the Greens do not have a majority on the council. The Labour Party councillors would not be allowed to support such ideas by their executive as it would not play well with the Daily Mail.
As soon as you mention the Daily Mail, you lose even more credibility.
HJ is too busy to respond personally as is entertaining his 'old money' chums tonight. He says he will spin another comment and post at his earliest convenience
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Anyone remember the 1983-87 Liverpool city council fight against Tory government cuts? Now there was a council with the gumption it was elected for. It won a '95% victory' when it extracted an extra £30 million in funding from the government. Against the background of an all-out assault on local authorities, just what is happening today with local authorities carrying the majority of the cuts in public spending (while Downing Street 10 % 11 are increasing their budget and MPs are gaining an 11% rise in their pay) Liverpool at that time managed to: Completely transform fourteen inner-city and two other housing estates. These had a population of over 40,000. They build five thousand council houses, all with front and back gardens and their own private entrance, 4,400 council houses and flats and 4,115 private-sector homes were renovated. They employed five hundred extra education staff, opened six new nurseries and built four colleges. Constructed 6 new sports centres were constructed and made sports facilities free for the unemployed, disabled people, those in receipt of a pension and school leavers. The council took on an extra 800 workers and 16,489 jobs were created by the house building programme. So go cry me a river Kitcat 'cause impressed I am not![/p][/quote]While I admire your radicalism, I think you miss the fact that the Greens do not have a majority on the council. The Labour Party councillors would not be allowed to support such ideas by their executive as it would not play well with the Daily Mail.[/p][/quote]As soon as you mention the Daily Mail, you lose even more credibility.[/p][/quote]HJ is too busy to respond personally as is entertaining his 'old money' chums tonight. He says he will spin another comment and post at his earliest convenience I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

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