Brighton and Hove City Council releases budget papers

Brighton and Hove City Council release budget papers

Brighton and Hove City Council release budget papers

First published in News
Last updated

Brighton and Hove City Council has released its budget papers.

In it, the council sets out how it plans to save £22 million.

The report is "based on an assumed council tax threshold increase of 2%. However, the proposed increase in council tax is 4.75% which, if agreed, would require a referendum".

It states freezing council tax in 2011/12 and 2012/13 meant resources had been reduced by about £4.4m.

The budget sets out about 100-150 council posts being removed although some are expected to go through natural wastage.

Councillor Jason Kitcat, Leader of the Council, said:  “As in previous years, we published budget proposals earlier than any previous administration. Over the last two months we’ve listened to the feedback from residents, unions, the community and voluntary sector, and others to improve the budget. 85% of residents have said they wanted to increase funding for Adult Social Care or at least maintain it at current levels.

“The council is in a more difficult financial position than ever, thanks to mounting coalition government cuts and rising demand for social care. Local services are £4m worse off than we would have been had Labour and the Tories not imposed a tax freeze in 2012.

“With both Labour and the Tories committed to cutting national funding for councils to zero by 2020, it’s crucial we as a city debate what we are willing to do to support our grandparents, parents and siblings who need care now and in the future”

Read the papers below:

Comments (54)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:48pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Quiterie says...

The first Council post to be removed should be the person who typed up these papers. Were they drunk?!?
The first Council post to be removed should be the person who typed up these papers. Were they drunk?!? Quiterie
  • Score: 17

1:24pm Fri 7 Feb 14

ripmaxman says...

The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance.

Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money?

Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why?

It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!! ripmaxman
  • Score: 43

1:30pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Seventh Circle says...

The Greens know full well that Brighton residents will vote no for a 4.75% increase in council tax, yet they persist in wasting £200,000 on a referendum.
That is why they are not fit to be in control and why they should resign now
The Greens know full well that Brighton residents will vote no for a 4.75% increase in council tax, yet they persist in wasting £200,000 on a referendum. That is why they are not fit to be in control and why they should resign now Seventh Circle
  • Score: 51

1:43pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Joshiman says...

ripmaxman wrote:
The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance.

Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money?

Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why?

It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin
g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
[quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please. Joshiman
  • Score: 40

2:04pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Legal1974 says...

Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...
[quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on... Legal1974
  • Score: 37

2:05pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

"85% of residents have said they wanted to increase funding for Adult Social Care or at least maintain it at current levels."

I'm a resident and council tax payer of this city - when and how were we asked this question ? I certainly wasn't so clearly Kitcat is a liar.
"85% of residents have said they wanted to increase funding for Adult Social Care or at least maintain it at current levels." I'm a resident and council tax payer of this city - when and how were we asked this question ? I certainly wasn't so clearly Kitcat is a liar. Fight_Back
  • Score: 45

2:35pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Andy R says...

Legal1974 wrote:
Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...
None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.
[quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...[/p][/quote]None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true. Andy R
  • Score: -25

3:03pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

Fight_Back wrote:
"85% of residents have said they wanted to increase funding for Adult Social Care or at least maintain it at current levels."

I'm a resident and council tax payer of this city - when and how were we asked this question ? I certainly wasn't so clearly Kitcat is a liar.
From reading the earlier budget report I think it was a "stratified sample" of 668 residents that responded to a Council Tax survey.

Some extracts from that November report about the postal survey to that sample group:-
"In order to meet objective 1 a postal survey was issued to a random sample of 3,280 households in early October, with an aim of receiving back 1,058 completed surveys to provide a robust sample.
.........In total 668 surveys were received via this method, representing a response rate of 21% (once void addresses are removed from the base).

.........Higher priority areas:
· Refuse Collection, Disposal and Recycling had the highest priority
rating for respondents themselves with 65% rating it high. Although it
was the third highest priority service for the city, a slightly larger
proportion, 66%, rated it higher for the city than for themselves. Just
3% rated it a low priority for either themselves or the city.
· Education was the highest rated service for the city with over three
quarters of respondents (77%) giving it a high priority rating.
116
· Refuse Collection, Disposal and Recycling and Public Safety both have
very high and very similar priority ratings, regardless of whether
respondents were rating them for themselves or the city.
· Children’s Social Care also had a high priority rating, especially when
rated for the city, with 66% rating it high."
-------------

Adult Services was a Low Priority area with a 38% rating.
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------

So it looks like the Council went through the residents' survey process and then ignored the prioritisation responses because it didn't give them the answer the Green administration wanted.

Welcome to the surreal world of Green politics.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: "85% of residents have said they wanted to increase funding for Adult Social Care or at least maintain it at current levels." I'm a resident and council tax payer of this city - when and how were we asked this question ? I certainly wasn't so clearly Kitcat is a liar.[/p][/quote]From reading the earlier budget report I think it was a "stratified sample" of 668 residents that responded to a Council Tax survey. Some extracts from that November report about the postal survey to that sample group:- "In order to meet objective 1 a postal survey was issued to a random sample of 3,280 households in early October, with an aim of receiving back 1,058 completed surveys to provide a robust sample. .........In total 668 surveys were received via this method, representing a response rate of 21% (once void addresses are removed from the base). .........Higher priority areas: · Refuse Collection, Disposal and Recycling had the highest priority rating for respondents themselves with 65% rating it high. Although it was the third highest priority service for the city, a slightly larger proportion, 66%, rated it higher for the city than for themselves. Just 3% rated it a low priority for either themselves or the city. · Education was the highest rated service for the city with over three quarters of respondents (77%) giving it a high priority rating. 116 · Refuse Collection, Disposal and Recycling and Public Safety both have very high and very similar priority ratings, regardless of whether respondents were rating them for themselves or the city. · Children’s Social Care also had a high priority rating, especially when rated for the city, with 66% rating it high." ------------- Adult Services was a Low Priority area with a 38% rating. -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- So it looks like the Council went through the residents' survey process and then ignored the prioritisation responses because it didn't give them the answer the Green administration wanted. Welcome to the surreal world of Green politics. Thay Qon U
  • Score: 24

3:10pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Dealing with idiots says...

Andy R wrote:
Legal1974 wrote:
Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...
None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.
Sorry Andy but the money does come from somewhere. It comes out of general taxation. Are you saying that that wasting our limited resorces is fine as long as it does not come out of local taxation Yet another Leftie lickspittle that thinks money grows on trees.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...[/p][/quote]None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.[/p][/quote]Sorry Andy but the money does come from somewhere. It comes out of general taxation. Are you saying that that wasting our limited resorces is fine as long as it does not come out of local taxation Yet another Leftie lickspittle that thinks money grows on trees. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 26

3:11pm Fri 7 Feb 14

BrighterStar says...

Andy R wrote:
Legal1974 wrote:
Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...
None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.
Thank god at last - someone who actually writes from an informed position instead of repeating the usual opionated vitriol. Lets get one thing clear - the Green administration could be defeated if the other parties voted/worked together but they haven't. It therefore follows that the schemes of which we hear so much and which give rise to so much anger on these pages( Lewes Road, Bowling Greens, 20mph limit etc) have been supported by either one or both of the other parties on the Council. Local Government finance is not one big pie handed out to whomsoever is in power to spend as they see fit. If you are angry then it is surely to the oppostion parties that your anger should be directed - it is their tacit complicity that endorses these schemes and it is their parties nationally that are cutting off funding to Councils.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...[/p][/quote]None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.[/p][/quote]Thank god at last - someone who actually writes from an informed position instead of repeating the usual opionated vitriol. Lets get one thing clear - the Green administration could be defeated if the other parties voted/worked together but they haven't. It therefore follows that the schemes of which we hear so much and which give rise to so much anger on these pages( Lewes Road, Bowling Greens, 20mph limit etc) have been supported by either one or both of the other parties on the Council. Local Government finance is not one big pie handed out to whomsoever is in power to spend as they see fit. If you are angry then it is surely to the oppostion parties that your anger should be directed - it is their tacit complicity that endorses these schemes and it is their parties nationally that are cutting off funding to Councils. BrighterStar
  • Score: 12

3:36pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Andy R says...

Dealing with idiots wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Legal1974 wrote:
Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...
None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.
Sorry Andy but the money does come from somewhere. It comes out of general taxation. Are you saying that that wasting our limited resorces is fine as long as it does not come out of local taxation Yet another Leftie lickspittle that thinks money grows on trees.
Er no....I'm answering the specific point that if only the Greens didn't build cycle lanes they'd have money for Council services. Try dealing with a point I did make rather than one I didn't, if that's not too difficult for you.
[quote][p][bold]Dealing with idiots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...[/p][/quote]None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.[/p][/quote]Sorry Andy but the money does come from somewhere. It comes out of general taxation. Are you saying that that wasting our limited resorces is fine as long as it does not come out of local taxation Yet another Leftie lickspittle that thinks money grows on trees.[/p][/quote]Er no....I'm answering the specific point that if only the Greens didn't build cycle lanes they'd have money for Council services. Try dealing with a point I did make rather than one I didn't, if that's not too difficult for you. Andy R
  • Score: -3

4:00pm Fri 7 Feb 14

rayellerton says...

Andy R wrote:
Legal1974 wrote:
Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...
None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.
It's still our bloody money! unless you don't work...
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...[/p][/quote]None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.[/p][/quote]It's still our bloody money! unless you don't work... rayellerton
  • Score: 17

4:12pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Andy R says...

rayellerton wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Legal1974 wrote:
Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...
None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.
It's still our bloody money! unless you don't work...
Never said it wasn't.

Dear oh dear.....the gerbil just won't stay on it's little treadmill today will it?
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...[/p][/quote]None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.[/p][/quote]It's still our bloody money! unless you don't work...[/p][/quote]Never said it wasn't. Dear oh dear.....the gerbil just won't stay on it's little treadmill today will it? Andy R
  • Score: -29

4:15pm Fri 7 Feb 14

rayellerton says...

oh and one more thing...yes the money may come from the EU or central government...but, the planning, application, tenders, supervision is all carried out by salaried council staff who possibly would not be needed if we didnt have these schemes foisted upon us. I am for cuts to management/officers to enable front line staff to carry on doing the work that we really want done....sorry if that offends any said council staff including Andy R.
oh and one more thing...yes the money may come from the EU or central government...but, the planning, application, tenders, supervision is all carried out by salaried council staff who possibly would not be needed if we didnt have these schemes foisted upon us. I am for cuts to management/officers to enable front line staff to carry on doing the work that we really want done....sorry if that offends any said council staff including Andy R. rayellerton
  • Score: 18

4:21pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Andy R says...

rayellerton wrote:
oh and one more thing...yes the money may come from the EU or central government...but, the planning, application, tenders, supervision is all carried out by salaried council staff who possibly would not be needed if we didnt have these schemes foisted upon us. I am for cuts to management/officers to enable front line staff to carry on doing the work that we really want done....sorry if that offends any said council staff including Andy R.
Who's the "we" here then? Suddenly you get to speak for everyone? You should stand for election.
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: oh and one more thing...yes the money may come from the EU or central government...but, the planning, application, tenders, supervision is all carried out by salaried council staff who possibly would not be needed if we didnt have these schemes foisted upon us. I am for cuts to management/officers to enable front line staff to carry on doing the work that we really want done....sorry if that offends any said council staff including Andy R.[/p][/quote]Who's the "we" here then? Suddenly you get to speak for everyone? You should stand for election. Andy R
  • Score: -23

4:24pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Drew18 says...

Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote:
The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance.

Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money?

Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why?

It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin

g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
Council budgets are ring fenced. This means LEGALLY money allocated to the city's transport budget can only be spent on transport initiatives NOT adult social care. Fact not spin.

The vulnerable, sick and elderly are already given priority. Adult Social Care is by far the biggest budget with ever an increasing amount of service users. In the past few years massive savings have been made but when the staff and unions were consulted on the 2% budget their feedback was that no more cuts could be sustained without substantial loss of jobs and services. This is why Unison & GMB support the referendum.

In the past both Tory & Labour administrations have put up council tax each year - often with a rate higher than inflation. Last time Labour was in power the rise was a massive 14%. No one complained then.
[quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]Council budgets are ring fenced. This means LEGALLY money allocated to the city's transport budget can only be spent on transport initiatives NOT adult social care. Fact not spin. The vulnerable, sick and elderly are already given priority. Adult Social Care is by far the biggest budget with ever an increasing amount of service users. In the past few years massive savings have been made but when the staff and unions were consulted on the 2% budget their feedback was that no more cuts could be sustained without substantial loss of jobs and services. This is why Unison & GMB support the referendum. In the past both Tory & Labour administrations have put up council tax each year - often with a rate higher than inflation. Last time Labour was in power the rise was a massive 14%. No one complained then. Drew18
  • Score: -13

4:32pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Drew18 says...

Legal1974 wrote:
Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...
Caroline Lucas is a Member of Parliament and has nothing to do with the Council. She's paid an MPs salary - and recently refused to take the proposed rise.

All councillors are paid mainly by expenses depending on what committee they work on - regardless of what party they represent. The current level of expenses and salaries was not set by the Greens.

There are lots of complaints on transport schemes but don't forget the Greens are in a minority administration. That means that 20mph, cycle lanes etc only got the go ahead because they received both Labour & Tory support. This is how the current Council is run - cross party working.
[quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...[/p][/quote]Caroline Lucas is a Member of Parliament and has nothing to do with the Council. She's paid an MPs salary - and recently refused to take the proposed rise. All councillors are paid mainly by expenses depending on what committee they work on - regardless of what party they represent. The current level of expenses and salaries was not set by the Greens. There are lots of complaints on transport schemes but don't forget the Greens are in a minority administration. That means that 20mph, cycle lanes etc only got the go ahead because they received both Labour & Tory support. This is how the current Council is run - cross party working. Drew18
  • Score: -18

4:39pm Fri 7 Feb 14

rayellerton says...

We....being dissatisfied council tax payers who are fed up with being asked for more and more money for less and less services
We....being dissatisfied council tax payers who are fed up with being asked for more and more money for less and less services rayellerton
  • Score: 15

4:39pm Fri 7 Feb 14

kopite_rob says...

I've read many executive summaries & budget reports, even had to write a few of the things in my time. I've skimmed the attached report and only have 3 questions to raise.

Was it written by a youth experience trainee?
There's no contents page, the formatting and font is all over the shop and whoever wrote the text is an advocate of using a thousand words when one will do.

Secondly the Capital expenses summary is very brief.
I'm surprised there's not a little more detail on maintenance, renewals and new builds. Especially highways. I'd love to know how much has been spent on pavement replacements, potholes and damaged kerbs, and how much more is needed. The coast road is not going to last another harsh Winter. Despite the chagrin of many that feel the Greens have wasted money on cycle infrastructure schemes it's very obvious the money for this has come from Grants.
Despite the cry of well it's still our money, yes quite right its from EU & Centralised funds, but we'd have still had the money taken off of us in general taxation, it just might have gone to Manchester, the Outer Hebrides or worse mainland Europe. We'd have still been out of pocket, so at least we got something to show for it.
It would have been nice to have included a strapline of how much from Centralised Govt. and the EU the Council successfully obtained, and is planning for not just for road schemes, but also Arts & Entertainment, Education, Housing, Health etc just to provide some balance to the argument that not all cash available is spent on cycle lanes.

Thirdly the budget line for tourism & leisure & seafront improvements is empty from 2016, yet similarly so is regeneration.
So neither the physical infrastructure attractors for either visitors or business have an identified capital plan beyond 2 years time.
We need £10M apparently just for the arches on Madeira, this doesn't bode well for the next Council coming in.
I've read many executive summaries & budget reports, even had to write a few of the things in my time. I've skimmed the attached report and only have 3 questions to raise. Was it written by a youth experience trainee? There's no contents page, the formatting and font is all over the shop and whoever wrote the text is an advocate of using a thousand words when one will do. Secondly the Capital expenses summary is very brief. I'm surprised there's not a little more detail on maintenance, renewals and new builds. Especially highways. I'd love to know how much has been spent on pavement replacements, potholes and damaged kerbs, and how much more is needed. The coast road is not going to last another harsh Winter. Despite the chagrin of many that feel the Greens have wasted money on cycle infrastructure schemes it's very obvious the money for this has come from Grants. Despite the cry of well it's still our money, yes quite right its from EU & Centralised funds, but we'd have still had the money taken off of us in general taxation, it just might have gone to Manchester, the Outer Hebrides or worse mainland Europe. We'd have still been out of pocket, so at least we got something to show for it. It would have been nice to have included a strapline of how much from Centralised Govt. and the EU the Council successfully obtained, and is planning for not just for road schemes, but also Arts & Entertainment, Education, Housing, Health etc just to provide some balance to the argument that not all cash available is spent on cycle lanes. Thirdly the budget line for tourism & leisure & seafront improvements is empty from 2016, yet similarly so is regeneration. So neither the physical infrastructure attractors for either visitors or business have an identified capital plan beyond 2 years time. We need £10M apparently just for the arches on Madeira, this doesn't bode well for the next Council coming in. kopite_rob
  • Score: 10

4:56pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in.

So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts.

A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.
The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in. So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts. A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 14

5:22pm Fri 7 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in.

So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts.

A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.
Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved.

Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds!

Labour has continually let us down.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in. So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts. A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.[/p][/quote]Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved. Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds! Labour has continually let us down. HJarrs
  • Score: -7

5:24pm Fri 7 Feb 14

VoxUnpopuli says...

Andy R wrote:
Dealing with idiots wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Legal1974 wrote:
Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...
None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.
Sorry Andy but the money does come from somewhere. It comes out of general taxation. Are you saying that that wasting our limited resorces is fine as long as it does not come out of local taxation Yet another Leftie lickspittle that thinks money grows on trees.
Er no....I'm answering the specific point that if only the Greens didn't build cycle lanes they'd have money for Council services. Try dealing with a point I did make rather than one I didn't, if that's not too difficult for you.
The money for social services used to come out of general taxation too, in the form of government subsidies for local government. It is because those grants have been cut in order to bail out this government's parasitic friends in the banking industry that we are facing these choices. Bob Diamond, Fred Goodwin and Eric Pickles must be killing themselves laughing whilst you argue about it!
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dealing with idiots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...[/p][/quote]None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.[/p][/quote]Sorry Andy but the money does come from somewhere. It comes out of general taxation. Are you saying that that wasting our limited resorces is fine as long as it does not come out of local taxation Yet another Leftie lickspittle that thinks money grows on trees.[/p][/quote]Er no....I'm answering the specific point that if only the Greens didn't build cycle lanes they'd have money for Council services. Try dealing with a point I did make rather than one I didn't, if that's not too difficult for you.[/p][/quote]The money for social services used to come out of general taxation too, in the form of government subsidies for local government. It is because those grants have been cut in order to bail out this government's parasitic friends in the banking industry that we are facing these choices. Bob Diamond, Fred Goodwin and Eric Pickles must be killing themselves laughing whilst you argue about it! VoxUnpopuli
  • Score: -2

5:33pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in.

So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts.

A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.
The Greens have also failed to oversee the collection of local income from Council Tax & Business Rates for the current financial year 2013-14.

Council Tax collection (84.19%) is some £1.5m below their own internally defined monthly collection profile target as at 31/12/13.

Business Rates collection is some £1.4m below target - with a negative ££ impact on BHCC income of £0.7m, as overall income from Business Rates is shared 50:50 with Whitehall.

That £2.2m loss of local income this financial year makes a mockery of the vacuous squeals from the Greens about protecting services and budgets for vulnerable residents.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in. So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts. A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.[/p][/quote]The Greens have also failed to oversee the collection of local income from Council Tax & Business Rates for the current financial year 2013-14. Council Tax collection (84.19%) is some £1.5m below their own internally defined monthly collection profile target as at 31/12/13. Business Rates collection is some £1.4m below target - with a negative ££ impact on BHCC income of £0.7m, as overall income from Business Rates is shared 50:50 with Whitehall. That £2.2m loss of local income this financial year makes a mockery of the vacuous squeals from the Greens about protecting services and budgets for vulnerable residents. Thay Qon U
  • Score: 13

5:40pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

HJarrs wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in.

So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts.

A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.
Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved.

Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds!

Labour has continually let us down.
And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs.

I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in. So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts. A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.[/p][/quote]Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved. Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds! Labour has continually let us down.[/p][/quote]And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs. I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party. Fight_Back
  • Score: 15

5:51pm Fri 7 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Andy R wrote:
Legal1974 wrote:
Joshiman wrote:
ripmaxman wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!!
You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.
I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...
None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.
Is this actually true? From my calculations, yes there was some funding but some of these schemes were match funded. Old Shoreham Road got £300k in funding but cost £700k. Seven Dials is similar - I think it got £400k in funding but cost £800k - original budget was £625k so it went way over budget. Are you telling me the government picked up those costs? I am genuinely interested.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: The Green’s say they want to protect services for the venerable and the elderly. This is a rouse to make us all feel bad and has no real substance. Is it because of some of the schemes they have put in place and wasted thousands of tax payer’s money? Brighton City Council is the only one in the UK that has proposed a hike of 4.75% in council tax why? It’s time for the Greens to bow out gracefully after the vote of no confidence before they get kicked out!!![/p][/quote]You are correct.Protectectin g the vulnerable and the elderly is a red herring.Why do they not tell the truth.The monies have gone on other projects more dear to their hearts.More expensive and ineffective traffic lights,New traffic junctions,cycle lanes,20 mph (£cost?),Not fit for purpose new LED Street lights(how much did that cost?) Seven dials,Policing demonstrators,etc etc etc The vulnerable,sick and elderly should have had priority over all these schemes.We had enough spin under Blair and Campbell.No more please.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. Without wishing to repeat what you have said, how much have the Greens spent on ridiculous schemes such as the 20mph limit, cycle lanes everywhere, unecessary roadworks (including the change to Seven Dials)? I'd also like to know the salaries of our favourite Greens - KitKat and Lucas. What are these in comparison to the salaries in previous terms? I feel a FOI request coming on...[/p][/quote]None of the spending on these projects comes from the Council budget at all. The road and traffic schemes have been funded by specific grants from the Government and the EU. That's why most of them have gone through with all-party support and are similar to schemes already in place in councils of all political persuasions. It makes not one iota of difference to the level of council tax or what can be spent on social care. Repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more true.[/p][/quote]Is this actually true? From my calculations, yes there was some funding but some of these schemes were match funded. Old Shoreham Road got £300k in funding but cost £700k. Seven Dials is similar - I think it got £400k in funding but cost £800k - original budget was £625k so it went way over budget. Are you telling me the government picked up those costs? I am genuinely interested. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 12

5:54pm Fri 7 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Fight_Back wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in.

So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts.

A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.
Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved.

Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds!

Labour has continually let us down.
And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs.

I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.
You always agree with Morgan! You are a Labour apologist. I admit his articles in the Argus are so woolly, ambiguous and lacking in detail it is hard to agree or disagree.

Morgan has already cost the council £4 million (we now could have referendum!) by voting with the Tories to reject a 2% rise two years ago, all for a headline in the Argus. Goodness only knows what he would do in power.

At the end of the day Labour accept cuts (as can be seen across the country), the Greens do what they can to prevent them.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in. So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts. A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.[/p][/quote]Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved. Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds! Labour has continually let us down.[/p][/quote]And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs. I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.[/p][/quote]You always agree with Morgan! You are a Labour apologist. I admit his articles in the Argus are so woolly, ambiguous and lacking in detail it is hard to agree or disagree. Morgan has already cost the council £4 million (we now could have referendum!) by voting with the Tories to reject a 2% rise two years ago, all for a headline in the Argus. Goodness only knows what he would do in power. At the end of the day Labour accept cuts (as can be seen across the country), the Greens do what they can to prevent them. HJarrs
  • Score: -12

5:54pm Fri 7 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.
Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 19

5:59pm Fri 7 Feb 14

VoxUnpopuli says...

HJarrs wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in.

So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts.

A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.
Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved.

Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds!

Labour has continually let us down.
And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs.

I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.
You always agree with Morgan! You are a Labour apologist. I admit his articles in the Argus are so woolly, ambiguous and lacking in detail it is hard to agree or disagree.

Morgan has already cost the council £4 million (we now could have referendum!) by voting with the Tories to reject a 2% rise two years ago, all for a headline in the Argus. Goodness only knows what he would do in power.

At the end of the day Labour accept cuts (as can be seen across the country), the Greens do what they can to prevent them.
We all know that "contract procurement" means putting the service out to tender with someone like Capita who will put in a ridiculously low bid to undercut competitors, promptly collapse the service and then demand more money to put it right. Both Labour and Conservatives have been guilty of this con on the public purse at local and national level.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in. So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts. A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.[/p][/quote]Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved. Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds! Labour has continually let us down.[/p][/quote]And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs. I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.[/p][/quote]You always agree with Morgan! You are a Labour apologist. I admit his articles in the Argus are so woolly, ambiguous and lacking in detail it is hard to agree or disagree. Morgan has already cost the council £4 million (we now could have referendum!) by voting with the Tories to reject a 2% rise two years ago, all for a headline in the Argus. Goodness only knows what he would do in power. At the end of the day Labour accept cuts (as can be seen across the country), the Greens do what they can to prevent them.[/p][/quote]We all know that "contract procurement" means putting the service out to tender with someone like Capita who will put in a ridiculously low bid to undercut competitors, promptly collapse the service and then demand more money to put it right. Both Labour and Conservatives have been guilty of this con on the public purse at local and national level. VoxUnpopuli
  • Score: 1

6:29pm Fri 7 Feb 14

JHunty says...

HJarrs wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in.

So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts.

A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.
Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved.

Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds!

Labour has continually let us down.
And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs.

I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.
You always agree with Morgan! You are a Labour apologist. I admit his articles in the Argus are so woolly, ambiguous and lacking in detail it is hard to agree or disagree.

Morgan has already cost the council £4 million (we now could have referendum!) by voting with the Tories to reject a 2% rise two years ago, all for a headline in the Argus. Goodness only knows what he would do in power.

At the end of the day Labour accept cuts (as can be seen across the country), the Greens do what they can to prevent them.
No the greens pass the cost of the cuts onto citizens of Brighton.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in. So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts. A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.[/p][/quote]Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved. Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds! Labour has continually let us down.[/p][/quote]And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs. I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.[/p][/quote]You always agree with Morgan! You are a Labour apologist. I admit his articles in the Argus are so woolly, ambiguous and lacking in detail it is hard to agree or disagree. Morgan has already cost the council £4 million (we now could have referendum!) by voting with the Tories to reject a 2% rise two years ago, all for a headline in the Argus. Goodness only knows what he would do in power. At the end of the day Labour accept cuts (as can be seen across the country), the Greens do what they can to prevent them.[/p][/quote]No the greens pass the cost of the cuts onto citizens of Brighton. JHunty
  • Score: 16

7:09pm Fri 7 Feb 14

tez1959 says...

i bet a lot of opinionated people that write these comments on here probably voted them in anyway . what a waste of public spending to many cycle lanes hardly see anyone using them for a start they would rather use roads and go through red traffic lights yes you know who you are . get rid of the pen pushing greens they havent got a clue but do they care about you no.
i bet a lot of opinionated people that write these comments on here probably voted them in anyway . what a waste of public spending to many cycle lanes hardly see anyone using them for a start they would rather use roads and go through red traffic lights yes you know who you are . get rid of the pen pushing greens they havent got a clue but do they care about you no. tez1959
  • Score: 14

7:47pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

A society is broken when cycle lanes come before services for the elderly and disabled.
A society has little chance of repairing itself when those in power say they can't change the system which prevents money in budgets being moved about.
The reason people object to the Green proposal for an increase in council tax is because we cannot guarantee they won't fritter the money on non core business.
Many parties have suffered the same fate as the Greens across the UK.
The public have priorities and don't want excuses no matter what the party.
A society is broken when cycle lanes come before services for the elderly and disabled. A society has little chance of repairing itself when those in power say they can't change the system which prevents money in budgets being moved about. The reason people object to the Green proposal for an increase in council tax is because we cannot guarantee they won't fritter the money on non core business. Many parties have suffered the same fate as the Greens across the UK. The public have priorities and don't want excuses no matter what the party. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 15

9:58pm Fri 7 Feb 14

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

Fair cop then - we Greens have been completely outed for the damage we have done and are continuing to try to do before we get ousted.

HJ - You promised we would not get found out; we have!

I feel ashamed, especially when we have spent money earmarked for the deserving on silly vanity projects.
Fair cop then - we Greens have been completely outed for the damage we have done and are continuing to try to do before we get ousted. HJ - You promised we would not get found out; we have! I feel ashamed, especially when we have spent money earmarked for the deserving on silly vanity projects. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 6

10:06pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Richada says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.
I second that!

Never voted Labour in my life, but admire Mr Morgan for fronting up his own party here. He has, single handedly, earned my respect at the same time as the Greens have totally lost it through their secrecy, whilst at the same time spouting bungling spin and hypocritical ideology..

The Tories? Well they seem to be more shy, if less (perhaps!) secretive than the Greens here.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.[/p][/quote]I second that! Never voted Labour in my life, but admire Mr Morgan for fronting up his own party here. He has, single handedly, earned my respect at the same time as the Greens have totally lost it through their secrecy, whilst at the same time spouting bungling spin and hypocritical ideology.. The Tories? Well they seem to be more shy, if less (perhaps!) secretive than the Greens here. Richada
  • Score: 11

10:09pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Richada says...

The report is "based on an assumed council tax threshold increase of 2%. However, the proposed increase in council tax is 4.75% which, if agreed, would require a referendum".

Does this mean that our great leader concedes that he doesn't stand a hope in hell of getting a 4.75% rise through?
The report is "based on an assumed council tax threshold increase of 2%. However, the proposed increase in council tax is 4.75% which, if agreed, would require a referendum". Does this mean that our great leader concedes that he doesn't stand a hope in hell of getting a 4.75% rise through? Richada
  • Score: 10

10:16pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Richada says...

Thay Qon U wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in.

So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts.

A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.
The Greens have also failed to oversee the collection of local income from Council Tax & Business Rates for the current financial year 2013-14.

Council Tax collection (84.19%) is some £1.5m below their own internally defined monthly collection profile target as at 31/12/13.

Business Rates collection is some £1.4m below target - with a negative ££ impact on BHCC income of £0.7m, as overall income from Business Rates is shared 50:50 with Whitehall.

That £2.2m loss of local income this financial year makes a mockery of the vacuous squeals from the Greens about protecting services and budgets for vulnerable residents.
I wonder if the above is through bungling inefficiency on the council's part - or if the Greens are deliberately impoverishing the council for their own, manipulative political ends?

Either way, no business can survive if it proves incapable of recovering its debts - and we all know that the longer debts are left unrecovered, the more difficult it becomes to recover them and the more, in turn, it costs to do so.
[quote][p][bold]Thay Qon U[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in. So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts. A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.[/p][/quote]The Greens have also failed to oversee the collection of local income from Council Tax & Business Rates for the current financial year 2013-14. Council Tax collection (84.19%) is some £1.5m below their own internally defined monthly collection profile target as at 31/12/13. Business Rates collection is some £1.4m below target - with a negative ££ impact on BHCC income of £0.7m, as overall income from Business Rates is shared 50:50 with Whitehall. That £2.2m loss of local income this financial year makes a mockery of the vacuous squeals from the Greens about protecting services and budgets for vulnerable residents.[/p][/quote]I wonder if the above is through bungling inefficiency on the council's part - or if the Greens are deliberately impoverishing the council for their own, manipulative political ends? Either way, no business can survive if it proves incapable of recovering its debts - and we all know that the longer debts are left unrecovered, the more difficult it becomes to recover them and the more, in turn, it costs to do so. Richada
  • Score: 8

11:55pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Council tax collection is ahead of where it was at in 2009/10 under the last administration, who also set a less ambitious target for themselves. As you well know that's a cumulative percentage so 84% isn't bad for December with 3 months to the end of the financial year.
Council tax collection is ahead of where it was at in 2009/10 under the last administration, who also set a less ambitious target for themselves. As you well know that's a cumulative percentage so 84% isn't bad for December with 3 months to the end of the financial year. Eugenius
  • Score: -6

2:13am Sat 8 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

HJarrs wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in.

So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts.

A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.
Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved.

Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds!

Labour has continually let us down.
And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs.

I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.
You always agree with Morgan! You are a Labour apologist. I admit his articles in the Argus are so woolly, ambiguous and lacking in detail it is hard to agree or disagree.

Morgan has already cost the council £4 million (we now could have referendum!) by voting with the Tories to reject a 2% rise two years ago, all for a headline in the Argus. Goodness only knows what he would do in power.

At the end of the day Labour accept cuts (as can be seen across the country), the Greens do what they can to prevent them.
As has already been pointed out :- at least Mr Morgan has the guts to post under his own name and not hide behind an alias.

I've yet to see a single Green councilor do the same. You can come out with your silly little phrases like 'moanerati' and 'Vote Labour get Tory' which you peddle out all the time to avoid answering the question but you and your lot are too cowardly to post under your real names.

Now why is that?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in. So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts. A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.[/p][/quote]Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved. Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds! Labour has continually let us down.[/p][/quote]And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs. I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.[/p][/quote]You always agree with Morgan! You are a Labour apologist. I admit his articles in the Argus are so woolly, ambiguous and lacking in detail it is hard to agree or disagree. Morgan has already cost the council £4 million (we now could have referendum!) by voting with the Tories to reject a 2% rise two years ago, all for a headline in the Argus. Goodness only knows what he would do in power. At the end of the day Labour accept cuts (as can be seen across the country), the Greens do what they can to prevent them.[/p][/quote]As has already been pointed out :- at least Mr Morgan has the guts to post under his own name and not hide behind an alias. I've yet to see a single Green councilor do the same. You can come out with your silly little phrases like 'moanerati' and 'Vote Labour get Tory' which you peddle out all the time to avoid answering the question but you and your lot are too cowardly to post under your real names. Now why is that? Ambo Guy
  • Score: 13

8:59am Sat 8 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

My money is on Eugenius being green councillor Geoffrey Bowden, PR company owner.
It made me chuckle that a Green poster would choose the name Eugenius to elevate themselves to the position of Emperor Flavius Eugenius.
Come on Geoffrey come clean.
These Greens love the power and hierarchy. I still have the image of green mayor Bill Randall in his golden chains driving his freebie mayoral car to London while waving like the queen at the plebs he has instructed to cycle everywhere.
It's like Yes Minister.
My money is on Eugenius being green councillor Geoffrey Bowden, PR company owner. It made me chuckle that a Green poster would choose the name Eugenius to elevate themselves to the position of Emperor Flavius Eugenius. Come on Geoffrey come clean. These Greens love the power and hierarchy. I still have the image of green mayor Bill Randall in his golden chains driving his freebie mayoral car to London while waving like the queen at the plebs he has instructed to cycle everywhere. It's like Yes Minister. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 8

9:23am Sat 8 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

Eugenius wrote:
Council tax collection is ahead of where it was at in 2009/10 under the last administration, who also set a less ambitious target for themselves. As you well know that's a cumulative percentage so 84% isn't bad for December with 3 months to the end of the financial year.
My mistake, apologies.

Your right 84% collection as at December isn't bad, but that is the target figure.

The actual collected is only 82.19%.

The equivalent actual collected for December 2009 "under Labour" was 83.61%.

Belated thanks to HJarrs for getting this 'open data' updated after being left to gather dust since September 2013.

Looking forward to seeing the actual percentage collected for the next 3 months. The Jan 2014 actaual figures, hopefully won't be long now.

http://www.brighton-
hove.gov.uk/content/
council-tax-and-bene
fits/council-tax/mon
thly-collection-rate
s
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Council tax collection is ahead of where it was at in 2009/10 under the last administration, who also set a less ambitious target for themselves. As you well know that's a cumulative percentage so 84% isn't bad for December with 3 months to the end of the financial year.[/p][/quote]My mistake, apologies. Your right 84% collection as at December isn't bad, but that is the target figure. The actual collected is only 82.19%. The equivalent actual collected for December 2009 "under Labour" was 83.61%. Belated thanks to HJarrs for getting this 'open data' updated after being left to gather dust since September 2013. Looking forward to seeing the actual percentage collected for the next 3 months. The Jan 2014 actaual figures, hopefully won't be long now. http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ council-tax-and-bene fits/council-tax/mon thly-collection-rate s Thay Qon U
  • Score: 0

9:32am Sat 8 Feb 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in.

So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts.

A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.
Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved.

Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds!

Labour has continually let us down.
And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs.

I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.
You always agree with Morgan! You are a Labour apologist. I admit his articles in the Argus are so woolly, ambiguous and lacking in detail it is hard to agree or disagree.

Morgan has already cost the council £4 million (we now could have referendum!) by voting with the Tories to reject a 2% rise two years ago, all for a headline in the Argus. Goodness only knows what he would do in power.

At the end of the day Labour accept cuts (as can be seen across the country), the Greens do what they can to prevent them.
As has already been pointed out :- at least Mr Morgan has the guts to post under his own name and not hide behind an alias.

I've yet to see a single Green councilor do the same. You can come out with your silly little phrases like 'moanerati' and 'Vote Labour get Tory' which you peddle out all the time to avoid answering the question but you and your lot are too cowardly to post under your real names.

Now why is that?
My guess is that these green ambassadors are all London based and once identified willl be just three or four people using double that number of posting names

Amboguy they are laughable and we see them for what they are. - Posh kids with a penchant for Marxist theory who haven't done a days work in their sad little lives

Wasters
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: The Greens have failed to make the £2m in savings from the social care budget that were identified in the last three Budgets. The Greens have failed to make the £3m savings from the Voluntary Severance Scheme that they were supposed to. They are paying consultants £70k to find more savings, and they have come up with a million, but the Greens have prevented them from looking for savings in some areas that they don't want cuts in. So the Greens are saying they will have to make cuts in social care unless you come up with an extra £4 - £7 a month after a referendum costing £230,000. They have failed and want to pin the blame on the opposition or the public for voting them through. They want to make social care service users and those on low incomes pay for their failings and the Tory cuts. A Labour council would get better value for money from social care contract procurement (our costs are way higher than other councils), we would merge services with the NHS, and we would pursue some of those savings the Greens have failed to deliver. That ought to deliver most if not all of the extra £2.5m the Greens tax rise would deliver if it got voted through - which it won't.[/p][/quote]Morgan, are you having a laugh? You will just magic up better value contracts just like that! What rubbish. Labour has an appaling record on value, when last in power you frittered away money like no tomorrow. It was the feasability study administration! Plenty spent, not much achieved. Up and down the country we can see Labour delivering "better value". Yep, it certainly saves money closing libraries, children's centres, care homes and closing playgrounds! Labour has continually let us down.[/p][/quote]And there shows the Green naivety. In 2010 the government called all its suppliers in to discuss getting discounts almost immediately - I know because I worked for one of the suppliers at the time. 90% of suppliers agreed to cuts in contract costs. I rarely agree with Cllr Morgan's politics but his understanding that many local tax payers can't afford the increase does at least show he's in touch with reality - unlike the Green Party.[/p][/quote]You always agree with Morgan! You are a Labour apologist. I admit his articles in the Argus are so woolly, ambiguous and lacking in detail it is hard to agree or disagree. Morgan has already cost the council £4 million (we now could have referendum!) by voting with the Tories to reject a 2% rise two years ago, all for a headline in the Argus. Goodness only knows what he would do in power. At the end of the day Labour accept cuts (as can be seen across the country), the Greens do what they can to prevent them.[/p][/quote]As has already been pointed out :- at least Mr Morgan has the guts to post under his own name and not hide behind an alias. I've yet to see a single Green councilor do the same. You can come out with your silly little phrases like 'moanerati' and 'Vote Labour get Tory' which you peddle out all the time to avoid answering the question but you and your lot are too cowardly to post under your real names. Now why is that?[/p][/quote]My guess is that these green ambassadors are all London based and once identified willl be just three or four people using double that number of posting names Amboguy they are laughable and we see them for what they are. - Posh kids with a penchant for Marxist theory who haven't done a days work in their sad little lives Wasters Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 4

10:01am Sat 8 Feb 14

Andy R says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.
...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.[/p][/quote]...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous.... Andy R
  • Score: -7

10:52am Sat 8 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

Andy R wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.
...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....
Oh dear. Do a lot of things in life go right over your head Andy? Are you purposely trying to be stupid?

Ok I'll try and explain it so you understand Comrade Andy. We have councillors from different parties here slinging mud at each other. Warren Morgan has chosen to post under his own name yet the various Green councillors (or is it just one with multiple accounts?) hide behind an alias. 'thevoiceoftruth' is not a councillor and has never implied in anyway that he/she is one so would it make any difference if he posted under his real name?

Are you starting to understand now? Don't worry all of that standing in Churchill Square in the pouring rain selling the Socialist Worker must have affected your logic for a while.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.[/p][/quote]...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Do a lot of things in life go right over your head Andy? Are you purposely trying to be stupid? Ok I'll try and explain it so you understand Comrade Andy. We have councillors from different parties here slinging mud at each other. Warren Morgan has chosen to post under his own name yet the various Green councillors (or is it just one with multiple accounts?) hide behind an alias. 'thevoiceoftruth' is not a councillor and has never implied in anyway that he/she is one so would it make any difference if he posted under his real name? Are you starting to understand now? Don't worry all of that standing in Churchill Square in the pouring rain selling the Socialist Worker must have affected your logic for a while. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 7

1:12pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Andy R says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Andy R wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.
...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....
Oh dear. Do a lot of things in life go right over your head Andy? Are you purposely trying to be stupid?

Ok I'll try and explain it so you understand Comrade Andy. We have councillors from different parties here slinging mud at each other. Warren Morgan has chosen to post under his own name yet the various Green councillors (or is it just one with multiple accounts?) hide behind an alias. 'thevoiceoftruth' is not a councillor and has never implied in anyway that he/she is one so would it make any difference if he posted under his real name?

Are you starting to understand now? Don't worry all of that standing in Churchill Square in the pouring rain selling the Socialist Worker must have affected your logic for a while.
Oh the unconscious irony! You have absolutely no idea whether anyone posting here is a councillor, apart from Warren Morgan. Voiceoftruth could be Geoffrey Theobald for all anyone knows. Your incorrect assumption about my paper selling habits illustrates the problem wonderfully.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.[/p][/quote]...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Do a lot of things in life go right over your head Andy? Are you purposely trying to be stupid? Ok I'll try and explain it so you understand Comrade Andy. We have councillors from different parties here slinging mud at each other. Warren Morgan has chosen to post under his own name yet the various Green councillors (or is it just one with multiple accounts?) hide behind an alias. 'thevoiceoftruth' is not a councillor and has never implied in anyway that he/she is one so would it make any difference if he posted under his real name? Are you starting to understand now? Don't worry all of that standing in Churchill Square in the pouring rain selling the Socialist Worker must have affected your logic for a while.[/p][/quote]Oh the unconscious irony! You have absolutely no idea whether anyone posting here is a councillor, apart from Warren Morgan. Voiceoftruth could be Geoffrey Theobald for all anyone knows. Your incorrect assumption about my paper selling habits illustrates the problem wonderfully. Andy R
  • Score: -4

1:58pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

I only use an alias because I wouldn't want my friends to think I was this boring in real life.
I only use an alias because I wouldn't want my friends to think I was this boring in real life. Eugenius
  • Score: 1

2:46pm Sat 8 Feb 14

wexler53 says...

Trouble is Eugenius, you and you're ilk are not only boring but downright dangerous...
Trouble is Eugenius, you and you're ilk are not only boring but downright dangerous... wexler53
  • Score: 2

4:00pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

wexler53 wrote:
Trouble is Eugenius, you and you're ilk are not only boring but downright dangerous...
Dangerous? You need to get out more.
[quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: Trouble is Eugenius, you and you're ilk are not only boring but downright dangerous...[/p][/quote]Dangerous? You need to get out more. Eugenius
  • Score: -1

4:00pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

wexler53 wrote:
Trouble is Eugenius, you and you're ilk are not only boring but downright dangerous...
Dangerous? You need to get out more.
[quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: Trouble is Eugenius, you and you're ilk are not only boring but downright dangerous...[/p][/quote]Dangerous? You need to get out more. Eugenius
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Sat 8 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Andy R wrote:
Ambo Guy wrote:
Andy R wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.
...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....
Oh dear. Do a lot of things in life go right over your head Andy? Are you purposely trying to be stupid?

Ok I'll try and explain it so you understand Comrade Andy. We have councillors from different parties here slinging mud at each other. Warren Morgan has chosen to post under his own name yet the various Green councillors (or is it just one with multiple accounts?) hide behind an alias. 'thevoiceoftruth' is not a councillor and has never implied in anyway that he/she is one so would it make any difference if he posted under his real name?

Are you starting to understand now? Don't worry all of that standing in Churchill Square in the pouring rain selling the Socialist Worker must have affected your logic for a while.
Oh the unconscious irony! You have absolutely no idea whether anyone posting here is a councillor, apart from Warren Morgan. Voiceoftruth could be Geoffrey Theobald for all anyone knows. Your incorrect assumption about my paper selling habits illustrates the problem wonderfully.
Geoffrey Theobald?!! I am insulted. I am not a member of any political party but I am a voter and council tax payer. I never vote tory.

Andy, it is interesting that you chose to answer my post about Warren Morgan, but completely evaded the question only two posts above that where I asked you about funding from government. I am probably starting to sound like a stuck record, but will someone from the green party please answer my question regarding where the additional £900k for Old Shoreham Road and Seven Dials came from? Eugenius?
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.[/p][/quote]...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Do a lot of things in life go right over your head Andy? Are you purposely trying to be stupid? Ok I'll try and explain it so you understand Comrade Andy. We have councillors from different parties here slinging mud at each other. Warren Morgan has chosen to post under his own name yet the various Green councillors (or is it just one with multiple accounts?) hide behind an alias. 'thevoiceoftruth' is not a councillor and has never implied in anyway that he/she is one so would it make any difference if he posted under his real name? Are you starting to understand now? Don't worry all of that standing in Churchill Square in the pouring rain selling the Socialist Worker must have affected your logic for a while.[/p][/quote]Oh the unconscious irony! You have absolutely no idea whether anyone posting here is a councillor, apart from Warren Morgan. Voiceoftruth could be Geoffrey Theobald for all anyone knows. Your incorrect assumption about my paper selling habits illustrates the problem wonderfully.[/p][/quote]Geoffrey Theobald?!! I am insulted. I am not a member of any political party but I am a voter and council tax payer. I never vote tory. Andy, it is interesting that you chose to answer my post about Warren Morgan, but completely evaded the question only two posts above that where I asked you about funding from government. I am probably starting to sound like a stuck record, but will someone from the green party please answer my question regarding where the additional £900k for Old Shoreham Road and Seven Dials came from? Eugenius? thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 1

6:14pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

Could someone please explain my post IN SIMPLE TERMS to Andy please? Just as a lot of us thought it would, it's gone right over his head!

Take HJarrs for example, this individual has admitted to being a Green councillor but won't give a real name for some reason. Andy's response to pick random posters on here and say 'well I think they're a Tory' is so ridiculous and desperate it almost doesn't warrant a response!

Anyway, he's got papers to give away now so let's allow him that little moment of stupidity!
Could someone please explain my post IN SIMPLE TERMS to Andy please? Just as a lot of us thought it would, it's gone right over his head! Take HJarrs for example, this individual has admitted to being a Green councillor but won't give a real name for some reason. Andy's response to pick random posters on here and say 'well I think they're a Tory' is so ridiculous and desperate it almost doesn't warrant a response! Anyway, he's got papers to give away now so let's allow him that little moment of stupidity! Ambo Guy
  • Score: 2

9:22pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Eugenius are you Geoffrey Bowden and why have you chosen to name yourself after an Emperor?
Eugenius are you Geoffrey Bowden and why have you chosen to name yourself after an Emperor? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 2

11:09pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Ambo Guy wrote:
Andy R wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.
...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....
Oh dear. Do a lot of things in life go right over your head Andy? Are you purposely trying to be stupid?

Ok I'll try and explain it so you understand Comrade Andy. We have councillors from different parties here slinging mud at each other. Warren Morgan has chosen to post under his own name yet the various Green councillors (or is it just one with multiple accounts?) hide behind an alias. 'thevoiceoftruth' is not a councillor and has never implied in anyway that he/she is one so would it make any difference if he posted under his real name?

Are you starting to understand now? Don't worry all of that standing in Churchill Square in the pouring rain selling the Socialist Worker must have affected your logic for a while.
Oh the unconscious irony! You have absolutely no idea whether anyone posting here is a councillor, apart from Warren Morgan. Voiceoftruth could be Geoffrey Theobald for all anyone knows. Your incorrect assumption about my paper selling habits illustrates the problem wonderfully.
Geoffrey Theobald?!! I am insulted. I am not a member of any political party but I am a voter and council tax payer. I never vote tory.

Andy, it is interesting that you chose to answer my post about Warren Morgan, but completely evaded the question only two posts above that where I asked you about funding from government. I am probably starting to sound like a stuck record, but will someone from the green party please answer my question regarding where the additional £900k for Old Shoreham Road and Seven Dials came from? Eugenius?
The match funding for Old Shoreham Road and Seven Dials schemes came from the Local Transport Plan Capital Programme. Every council has to have a LTP and this is the basis of a block funding grant from central government. About half the capital grant goes on road maintenance and half on improvements. Then the council successfully bid for £330k from Sustrans charity for Old Shoreham Road (I think there was additional funding from DTF Link to Schools Programme) and £300 from DTF Safer Cycle Routes for Seven Dials, both on a match funding basis. The LTP grant also includes resource funding for project management officer salary.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.[/p][/quote]...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Do a lot of things in life go right over your head Andy? Are you purposely trying to be stupid? Ok I'll try and explain it so you understand Comrade Andy. We have councillors from different parties here slinging mud at each other. Warren Morgan has chosen to post under his own name yet the various Green councillors (or is it just one with multiple accounts?) hide behind an alias. 'thevoiceoftruth' is not a councillor and has never implied in anyway that he/she is one so would it make any difference if he posted under his real name? Are you starting to understand now? Don't worry all of that standing in Churchill Square in the pouring rain selling the Socialist Worker must have affected your logic for a while.[/p][/quote]Oh the unconscious irony! You have absolutely no idea whether anyone posting here is a councillor, apart from Warren Morgan. Voiceoftruth could be Geoffrey Theobald for all anyone knows. Your incorrect assumption about my paper selling habits illustrates the problem wonderfully.[/p][/quote]Geoffrey Theobald?!! I am insulted. I am not a member of any political party but I am a voter and council tax payer. I never vote tory. Andy, it is interesting that you chose to answer my post about Warren Morgan, but completely evaded the question only two posts above that where I asked you about funding from government. I am probably starting to sound like a stuck record, but will someone from the green party please answer my question regarding where the additional £900k for Old Shoreham Road and Seven Dials came from? Eugenius?[/p][/quote]The match funding for Old Shoreham Road and Seven Dials schemes came from the Local Transport Plan Capital Programme. Every council has to have a LTP and this is the basis of a block funding grant from central government. About half the capital grant goes on road maintenance and half on improvements. Then the council successfully bid for £330k from Sustrans charity for Old Shoreham Road (I think there was additional funding from DTF Link to Schools Programme) and £300 from DTF Safer Cycle Routes for Seven Dials, both on a match funding basis. The LTP grant also includes resource funding for project management officer salary. Eugenius
  • Score: 1

11:24pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Eugenius are you Geoffrey Bowden and why have you chosen to name yourself after an Emperor?
No, I'm not Geoffrey and you're obviously not from Brighton if you don't get the Eugenius reference!
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Eugenius are you Geoffrey Bowden and why have you chosen to name yourself after an Emperor?[/p][/quote]No, I'm not Geoffrey and you're obviously not from Brighton if you don't get the Eugenius reference! Eugenius
  • Score: -4

9:47am Sun 9 Feb 14

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

Eugenius wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Eugenius are you Geoffrey Bowden and why have you chosen to name yourself after an Emperor?
No, I'm not Geoffrey and you're obviously not from Brighton if you don't get the Eugenius reference!
HJ - you are a genius, or should I say eugenius

We really have this Green thing nailed.

More useless cycle paths, bus lanes and unnecessary speed restrictions anyone?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Eugenius are you Geoffrey Bowden and why have you chosen to name yourself after an Emperor?[/p][/quote]No, I'm not Geoffrey and you're obviously not from Brighton if you don't get the Eugenius reference![/p][/quote]HJ - you are a genius, or should I say eugenius We really have this Green thing nailed. More useless cycle paths, bus lanes and unnecessary speed restrictions anyone? I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 1

1:46pm Mon 10 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Eugenius wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Ambo Guy wrote:
Andy R wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.
...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....
Oh dear. Do a lot of things in life go right over your head Andy? Are you purposely trying to be stupid?

Ok I'll try and explain it so you understand Comrade Andy. We have councillors from different parties here slinging mud at each other. Warren Morgan has chosen to post under his own name yet the various Green councillors (or is it just one with multiple accounts?) hide behind an alias. 'thevoiceoftruth' is not a councillor and has never implied in anyway that he/she is one so would it make any difference if he posted under his real name?

Are you starting to understand now? Don't worry all of that standing in Churchill Square in the pouring rain selling the Socialist Worker must have affected your logic for a while.
Oh the unconscious irony! You have absolutely no idea whether anyone posting here is a councillor, apart from Warren Morgan. Voiceoftruth could be Geoffrey Theobald for all anyone knows. Your incorrect assumption about my paper selling habits illustrates the problem wonderfully.
Geoffrey Theobald?!! I am insulted. I am not a member of any political party but I am a voter and council tax payer. I never vote tory.

Andy, it is interesting that you chose to answer my post about Warren Morgan, but completely evaded the question only two posts above that where I asked you about funding from government. I am probably starting to sound like a stuck record, but will someone from the green party please answer my question regarding where the additional £900k for Old Shoreham Road and Seven Dials came from? Eugenius?
The match funding for Old Shoreham Road and Seven Dials schemes came from the Local Transport Plan Capital Programme. Every council has to have a LTP and this is the basis of a block funding grant from central government. About half the capital grant goes on road maintenance and half on improvements. Then the council successfully bid for £330k from Sustrans charity for Old Shoreham Road (I think there was additional funding from DTF Link to Schools Programme) and £300 from DTF Safer Cycle Routes for Seven Dials, both on a match funding basis. The LTP grant also includes resource funding for project management officer salary.
Thank you, Eugenius - finally an answer that makes some sense!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: Oh and Warren Morgan - I do want to say that I really respect you for posting on here under your real name. It is a shame other parties don't do the same. Particularly the Green Party who seem to spend their time sneering at everyone else, while remaining anonymous.[/p][/quote]...says someone not posting under their own name.....and sneering at another party while remaining anonymous....[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Do a lot of things in life go right over your head Andy? Are you purposely trying to be stupid? Ok I'll try and explain it so you understand Comrade Andy. We have councillors from different parties here slinging mud at each other. Warren Morgan has chosen to post under his own name yet the various Green councillors (or is it just one with multiple accounts?) hide behind an alias. 'thevoiceoftruth' is not a councillor and has never implied in anyway that he/she is one so would it make any difference if he posted under his real name? Are you starting to understand now? Don't worry all of that standing in Churchill Square in the pouring rain selling the Socialist Worker must have affected your logic for a while.[/p][/quote]Oh the unconscious irony! You have absolutely no idea whether anyone posting here is a councillor, apart from Warren Morgan. Voiceoftruth could be Geoffrey Theobald for all anyone knows. Your incorrect assumption about my paper selling habits illustrates the problem wonderfully.[/p][/quote]Geoffrey Theobald?!! I am insulted. I am not a member of any political party but I am a voter and council tax payer. I never vote tory. Andy, it is interesting that you chose to answer my post about Warren Morgan, but completely evaded the question only two posts above that where I asked you about funding from government. I am probably starting to sound like a stuck record, but will someone from the green party please answer my question regarding where the additional £900k for Old Shoreham Road and Seven Dials came from? Eugenius?[/p][/quote]The match funding for Old Shoreham Road and Seven Dials schemes came from the Local Transport Plan Capital Programme. Every council has to have a LTP and this is the basis of a block funding grant from central government. About half the capital grant goes on road maintenance and half on improvements. Then the council successfully bid for £330k from Sustrans charity for Old Shoreham Road (I think there was additional funding from DTF Link to Schools Programme) and £300 from DTF Safer Cycle Routes for Seven Dials, both on a match funding basis. The LTP grant also includes resource funding for project management officer salary.[/p][/quote]Thank you, Eugenius - finally an answer that makes some sense! thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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