The ArgusNo! That's what 81% of you said in Argus council tax rise referendum (From The Argus)

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

No! That's what 81% of you said in Argus council tax rise referendum

The Argus: Argus reporter Neil Vowles with the postal votes Argus reporter Neil Vowles with the postal votes

The Argus gave you, the readers, the chance to have your say on a proposed 4.75% council tax increase and you have responded in your thousands.

And today we can reveal that the poll has returned an overwhelming no against a proposed council tax rise, which would have to be voted through by city residents in a referendum.

In total, by post, online and on the streets, 6,591 or 81% were against a rise and 1,533 or 19% were in favour.

Of the 5,043 votes cast on our website since we launched the poll on January 21, a staggering 72% of votes registered were against such an increase, which would see council tax rises of between £2.83 and £10.19 per month, depending on the value of residents’ homes.

Of our online votes, 2,264 unique users voted against the proposed 4.75% rise and 853 voted in favour. When multiple votes from distinct browsers were taken into account, the figures were 1433 for and 3610 against. 

We are using the multiple votes, as the ratio hardly differs and it is possible more than one person used the same browser to vote. 

Through the postbag, the response against the council tax increase was even more overwhelming, with the no voters outnumbering the yes voters by 25-to-one.

In total, The Argus received 305 no votes by Friday, compared to just 12 yes votes.

Accompanying these votes were several strongly-worded letters which expressed the strength of feeling against the proposed rise.

Paul Davies, from Portslade, wrote: “This Green council has to be the worst in my lifetime. How can they expect people to find the extra money, they live in cloud cuckoo land.”

And one letter showed the danger that the unpopularity of the council tax rise could have not only on Green council figures but on the country’s only Green MP as well.

One anonymous reader wrote: “How does this Caroline Lucas expect us pensioners of 73 and 80 years old to find the extra?

“We’ve had no rise in pensions for ages.”

The total votes cast by people we asked on the streets of Brighton and Hove was 412 no and 88 yes. 

Meanwhile, papers released on Friday saw several notable changes to the Green administration’s proposed budget for 2014/15.

The added income from a 4.75% council tax increase compared to a 2% council tax increase and other newly identified savings would mean reprieves for adult social care and disabled work schemes in the city.

In November, Brighton and Hove City Council’s minority Green administration outlined a proposed budget with a 2% council tax rise and proposed cuts to adult care and disabled worker schemes.

Two months later in a shock announcement, new budget details were revealed for a 4.75% rise.

Under Government rules, any proposed increase of above 2% would require a public referendum to vote on it.

The Argus launched its own poll in the days following the Green announcement and last Thursday we held a council tax debate in Hove Town Hall with the city’s three political leaders answering questions from Argus readers and the gathered audience.

Newly revised budget papers were issued on Friday and these final budget proposals will be discussed at the cross-party policy and resources committee meeting on Thursday.

If agreed, all budget amendments must be “signed off” by finance officers no later than noon on Monday, February 24, and would then go to a full council meeting for final ratification by all councillors three days later.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:45am Mon 10 Feb 14

Richada says...

No shock result there then!

I think describing this as a "staggering" vote is pushing it a bit when the vast majority of us could have predicted this outcome to within about 5% of the result.

What we will never know is the outcome had the Greens not already made themselves so incredibly unpopular - but then, as they remain the only council in the country to attempt to pull this off, I guess there would still have been a substantial "no" vote.
No shock result there then! I think describing this as a "staggering" vote is pushing it a bit when the vast majority of us could have predicted this outcome to within about 5% of the result. What we will never know is the outcome had the Greens not already made themselves so incredibly unpopular - but then, as they remain the only council in the country to attempt to pull this off, I guess there would still have been a substantial "no" vote. Richada
  • Score: 26

12:18pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

What a surprise !!!!

I await HJarrs who will complain that it is some Argus / Labour/ Moanarti conspiracy when he can't see that the Green Thickarti are no longer welcome in this city.
What a surprise !!!! I await HJarrs who will complain that it is some Argus / Labour/ Moanarti conspiracy when he can't see that the Green Thickarti are no longer welcome in this city. Fight_Back
  • Score: 30

12:29pm Mon 10 Feb 14

jokigenki says...

Of course we should blame the council for trying to raise funding when their budget has been cut by nearly 25% in the last 3 years and another £75m more cuts to be made. I know that in my business I could make 50% budget cuts without any reduction in the quality of service easily (I'm pretty sure I'd be much more efficient with less staff to pay). I mean, we're all better off under the Conservatives, with all the tax cuts they've delivered to help us through these difficult times, so it stands to reason that it must be the stupid Green council who are trying to wreck things by attempting to do what every council before them has had the ability to do without a sniff of a referendum.

All the vulnerable elderly, disabled and mentally ill people will still have access to food banks and charity, so why should we fund them?
Of course we should blame the council for trying to raise funding when their budget has been cut by nearly 25% in the last 3 years and another £75m more cuts to be made. I know that in my business I could make 50% budget cuts without any reduction in the quality of service easily (I'm pretty sure I'd be much more efficient with less staff to pay). I mean, we're all better off under the Conservatives, with all the tax cuts they've delivered to help us through these difficult times, so it stands to reason that it must be the stupid Green council who are trying to wreck things by attempting to do what every council before them has had the ability to do without a sniff of a referendum. All the vulnerable elderly, disabled and mentally ill people will still have access to food banks and charity, so why should we fund them? jokigenki
  • Score: -36

12:31pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Bill in Hanover says...

The voting is probably due more to general dissatisfaction with the Green Party, both the Council and the MP with their loony schemes such as chopping half of the trees down in Wild Park, attempting to set up illegal shooting galleries in the City and their 300% hike in parking fees and now installing a totally unnecessary 200 yard stretch of bus lane on Edward Street.. I will be surprised if the number of Green Councillors reaches double figures after the next election.
The voting is probably due more to general dissatisfaction with the Green Party, both the Council and the MP with their loony schemes such as chopping half of the trees down in Wild Park, attempting to set up illegal shooting galleries in the City and their 300% hike in parking fees and now installing a totally unnecessary 200 yard stretch of bus lane on Edward Street.. I will be surprised if the number of Green Councillors reaches double figures after the next election. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 31

12:32pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Hove Actually says...

Ha Ha Hjarrs spin those figures
Ha Ha Hjarrs spin those figures Hove Actually
  • Score: 27

12:46pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Seventh Circle says...

Yet they will persist in throwing away at least £200,000 to find this out.
Why can't the other groups form a temporary coalition till the next elections to prevent these idiots inflicting any more of their idiocy on us.
Yet they will persist in throwing away at least £200,000 to find this out. Why can't the other groups form a temporary coalition till the next elections to prevent these idiots inflicting any more of their idiocy on us. Seventh Circle
  • Score: 31

1:03pm Mon 10 Feb 14

jokigenki says...

They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted.

The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.
They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted. The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis. jokigenki
  • Score: -17

1:12pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

We will vote against the 4.75% increase and the referendum. The Tories will too so it won't happen.

The Greens will then say that we have voted through cuts to the most vulnerable. We've had just a couple of days to look through their budget.

There are £2m in "unachieved savings" in social care. There is an extra £100,000 being put in to the traveller budget - the same additional amount they put in last year and the year before. They have put aside half a million to cover the costs of a referendum and a no vote.

In fact there are around five million pounds in "contingency funding" and "service presure money" that is allocated to these and other unspecified areas of spending which would entirely offset the need for the cuts to social care.

The Greens have failed to make savings in their budget over two years. They are protecting cretain areas from cuts, even adding money to them. They are proposing cuts in social care and then saying that we have to agree big rises in council tax to stop them - but they have failed to get their financial house in order and are held hostage by their own ideologies.

We won't let the Greens make people who can't afford it pay for Green failure and Tory cuts.
We will vote against the 4.75% increase and the referendum. The Tories will too so it won't happen. The Greens will then say that we have voted through cuts to the most vulnerable. We've had just a couple of days to look through their budget. There are £2m in "unachieved savings" in social care. There is an extra £100,000 being put in to the traveller budget - the same additional amount they put in last year and the year before. They have put aside half a million to cover the costs of a referendum and a no vote. In fact there are around five million pounds in "contingency funding" and "service presure money" that is allocated to these and other unspecified areas of spending which would entirely offset the need for the cuts to social care. The Greens have failed to make savings in their budget over two years. They are protecting cretain areas from cuts, even adding money to them. They are proposing cuts in social care and then saying that we have to agree big rises in council tax to stop them - but they have failed to get their financial house in order and are held hostage by their own ideologies. We won't let the Greens make people who can't afford it pay for Green failure and Tory cuts. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 37

1:21pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Number Six says...

jokigenki wrote:
They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted.

The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.
Not quite true, is it? They can increase council tax by up to 2% without a referendum, I believe
[quote][p][bold]jokigenki[/bold] wrote: They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted. The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]Not quite true, is it? They can increase council tax by up to 2% without a referendum, I believe Number Six
  • Score: 19

1:28pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

jokigenki wrote:
They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted.

The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.
I've made my mind up on the fact that my family can't afford the increase. I pay my council tax and other taxes yet when my partner was unemployed what assistance other than JSA did we get ..... NONE. Not even free prescriptions so we didn't cash them in when the doctor gave them to us.

The Greens live in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to understanding what normal household budgets are like and they are using blackmail in an attempt to get people to agree the increase. Vote Labour or vote Tory but NEVER, NEVER vote Green again.
[quote][p][bold]jokigenki[/bold] wrote: They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted. The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]I've made my mind up on the fact that my family can't afford the increase. I pay my council tax and other taxes yet when my partner was unemployed what assistance other than JSA did we get ..... NONE. Not even free prescriptions so we didn't cash them in when the doctor gave them to us. The Greens live in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to understanding what normal household budgets are like and they are using blackmail in an attempt to get people to agree the increase. Vote Labour or vote Tory but NEVER, NEVER vote Green again. Fight_Back
  • Score: 23

1:36pm Mon 10 Feb 14

jokigenki says...

Number Six wrote:
jokigenki wrote:
They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted.

The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.
Not quite true, is it? They can increase council tax by up to 2% without a referendum, I believe
Even a 2% rise requires 2 things: 1. a majority vote from the council, which they have been denied for the last 3 years (council tax has increased by 6% less than inflation in that period), and 2. the ability to effectively budget with that raise.

To be honest, it seems like all parties in the council are guilty of putting politics before people, with the leaders of the parties being the most guilty. The only thing that is clear to me is that this mess is caused by central government - Osborne could make life easier for his precious "hard-working families" at a stroke by reversing the "temporary" 20% VAT rate.
[quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jokigenki[/bold] wrote: They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted. The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]Not quite true, is it? They can increase council tax by up to 2% without a referendum, I believe[/p][/quote]Even a 2% rise requires 2 things: 1. a majority vote from the council, which they have been denied for the last 3 years (council tax has increased by 6% less than inflation in that period), and 2. the ability to effectively budget with that raise. To be honest, it seems like all parties in the council are guilty of putting politics before people, with the leaders of the parties being the most guilty. The only thing that is clear to me is that this mess is caused by central government - Osborne could make life easier for his precious "hard-working families" at a stroke by reversing the "temporary" 20% VAT rate. jokigenki
  • Score: -4

1:50pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

You're right "Council Tax is now pretty much the only way a council has to raise funding"........ and it was ever thus.

Unfortunately, your argument falls down when you look at what the Green Party administration is currently doing in their oversight of the collection of Council Tax for 2013-14 at BHCC.

As at the latest published data (for the period ending 31st December 2013) on the BHCC web-site, they had only collected 82.9% of the overall amount due against their on target collection for Quarter 3 of 84.19%.

That underperformance in collection by BHCC of 1.29% equates to a loss of some £1.5m in local Council Tax income as at December 31st 2013.

Even if the Green Party administration match the best collection of Council Tax in Quarter 4 from the previous years (2011-12) of 12.27%, that would result in a full year collection of 95.17% against their own full year target of 97.63%, 2.46% below their own budgeted income for the financial year.

Hopefully, the January 2014 collection data will be updated soon?

Data source:- http://www.brighton-
hove.gov.uk/content/
council-tax-and-bene
fits/council-tax/mon
thly-collection-rate
s
You're right "Council Tax is now pretty much the only way a council has to raise funding"........ and it was ever thus. Unfortunately, your argument falls down when you look at what the Green Party administration is currently doing in their oversight of the collection of Council Tax for 2013-14 at BHCC. As at the latest published data (for the period ending 31st December 2013) on the BHCC web-site, they had only collected 82.9% of the overall amount due against their on target collection for Quarter 3 of 84.19%. That underperformance in collection by BHCC of 1.29% equates to a loss of some £1.5m in local Council Tax income as at December 31st 2013. Even if the Green Party administration match the best collection of Council Tax in Quarter 4 from the previous years (2011-12) of 12.27%, that would result in a full year collection of 95.17% against their own full year target of 97.63%, 2.46% below their own budgeted income for the financial year. Hopefully, the January 2014 collection data will be updated soon? Data source:- http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ council-tax-and-bene fits/council-tax/mon thly-collection-rate s Thay Qon U
  • Score: 14

2:05pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Richada says...

Seventh Circle wrote:
Yet they will persist in throwing away at least £200,000 to find this out.
Why can't the other groups form a temporary coalition till the next elections to prevent these idiots inflicting any more of their idiocy on us.
It seems so obvious doesn't it?

The answer is all too simple though, the 'other groups' are far too busy hacking into each other and refuse point blank to work together.

The council tax payers of Brighton are faced with a lose / lose situation whatever here.

Time for party politics to be entrirely divorced from local government. Also time that council tax payers interests were put ahead of all of the non-paying minority interests so beloved by the current administration.
[quote][p][bold]Seventh Circle[/bold] wrote: Yet they will persist in throwing away at least £200,000 to find this out. Why can't the other groups form a temporary coalition till the next elections to prevent these idiots inflicting any more of their idiocy on us.[/p][/quote]It seems so obvious doesn't it? The answer is all too simple though, the 'other groups' are far too busy hacking into each other and refuse point blank to work together. The council tax payers of Brighton are faced with a lose / lose situation whatever here. Time for party politics to be entrirely divorced from local government. Also time that council tax payers interests were put ahead of all of the non-paying minority interests so beloved by the current administration. Richada
  • Score: 13

3:46pm Mon 10 Feb 14

brighton bluenose says...

Fight_Back wrote:
jokigenki wrote:
They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted.

The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.
I've made my mind up on the fact that my family can't afford the increase. I pay my council tax and other taxes yet when my partner was unemployed what assistance other than JSA did we get ..... NONE. Not even free prescriptions so we didn't cash them in when the doctor gave them to us.

The Greens live in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to understanding what normal household budgets are like and they are using blackmail in an attempt to get people to agree the increase. Vote Labour or vote Tory but NEVER, NEVER vote Green again.
YOU REALLY CAN'T MAKE THIS UP - You appear to be complaining that you've received minimal assistance from the state (ie successive Tory and Labour administrations) in times of need yet you still want to vote for these parties!!! Please explain that logic?!
As for the Green budget they are trying to maintain jobs and services at a reasonable level - do you not understand how Tory/Lib/ Lab cuts are going to bite VERY hard over the next five years or so?!!
'Fight Back' my @rse - you've already given in!!
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jokigenki[/bold] wrote: They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted. The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]I've made my mind up on the fact that my family can't afford the increase. I pay my council tax and other taxes yet when my partner was unemployed what assistance other than JSA did we get ..... NONE. Not even free prescriptions so we didn't cash them in when the doctor gave them to us. The Greens live in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to understanding what normal household budgets are like and they are using blackmail in an attempt to get people to agree the increase. Vote Labour or vote Tory but NEVER, NEVER vote Green again.[/p][/quote]YOU REALLY CAN'T MAKE THIS UP - You appear to be complaining that you've received minimal assistance from the state (ie successive Tory and Labour administrations) in times of need yet you still want to vote for these parties!!! Please explain that logic?! As for the Green budget they are trying to maintain jobs and services at a reasonable level - do you not understand how Tory/Lib/ Lab cuts are going to bite VERY hard over the next five years or so?!! 'Fight Back' my @rse - you've already given in!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -27

3:58pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
jokigenki wrote:
They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted.

The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.
I've made my mind up on the fact that my family can't afford the increase. I pay my council tax and other taxes yet when my partner was unemployed what assistance other than JSA did we get ..... NONE. Not even free prescriptions so we didn't cash them in when the doctor gave them to us.

The Greens live in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to understanding what normal household budgets are like and they are using blackmail in an attempt to get people to agree the increase. Vote Labour or vote Tory but NEVER, NEVER vote Green again.
YOU REALLY CAN'T MAKE THIS UP - You appear to be complaining that you've received minimal assistance from the state (ie successive Tory and Labour administrations) in times of need yet you still want to vote for these parties!!! Please explain that logic?!
As for the Green budget they are trying to maintain jobs and services at a reasonable level - do you not understand how Tory/Lib/ Lab cuts are going to bite VERY hard over the next five years or so?!!
'Fight Back' my @rse - you've already given in!!
How is fighting back against a 4.75% increase in council tax that I can't really afford giving in ? Let's remember that apparently the Greens are fighting Tory cuts by what ...... oh yes ...... charging the tax payer even more for the bungled and failed services they already provide. Hardly fighting cuts is it ? More like just screwing the hard pressed tax payer for yet more unwarranted money !
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jokigenki[/bold] wrote: They have to spend £200,000 on a referendum because that is the only way they can increase council tax, and council tax is now pretty much the only mechanism that a council has to raise funding. I'm not going to argue that council tax is a fair method of taxation, since it disproportionately favours those who bought a house years ago and have increased its value, but it is their only viable option. The other way they could do it would be to invest in commercial schemes, but that is difficult when your budget is being reduced and you are finding it hard to provide essential services anyway, and you'd also be looking at a maturation period of at least 5 years before gaining a return on your investment. The alternative to raising funds is to cut essential services; it is not possible to do both, despite claims of "efficiency savings". If you can't see that this has deliberately been put in place by the Coalition to prevent local councils from being able to run their own affairs whilst having their budgets destroyed, then you are very short sighted. The figures I'm basing my argument on are available on the council website, which has all the budgets for previous years. Alternatively, you could just make up your mind based on instinct or ideology, much like the government seems to do on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]I've made my mind up on the fact that my family can't afford the increase. I pay my council tax and other taxes yet when my partner was unemployed what assistance other than JSA did we get ..... NONE. Not even free prescriptions so we didn't cash them in when the doctor gave them to us. The Greens live in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to understanding what normal household budgets are like and they are using blackmail in an attempt to get people to agree the increase. Vote Labour or vote Tory but NEVER, NEVER vote Green again.[/p][/quote]YOU REALLY CAN'T MAKE THIS UP - You appear to be complaining that you've received minimal assistance from the state (ie successive Tory and Labour administrations) in times of need yet you still want to vote for these parties!!! Please explain that logic?! As for the Green budget they are trying to maintain jobs and services at a reasonable level - do you not understand how Tory/Lib/ Lab cuts are going to bite VERY hard over the next five years or so?!! 'Fight Back' my @rse - you've already given in!![/p][/quote]How is fighting back against a 4.75% increase in council tax that I can't really afford giving in ? Let's remember that apparently the Greens are fighting Tory cuts by what ...... oh yes ...... charging the tax payer even more for the bungled and failed services they already provide. Hardly fighting cuts is it ? More like just screwing the hard pressed tax payer for yet more unwarranted money ! Fight_Back
  • Score: 20

4:03pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Oh and brighton bluenose, it would appear 81% of residents agree with me !
Oh and brighton bluenose, it would appear 81% of residents agree with me ! Fight_Back
  • Score: 21

4:21pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Richada says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Oh and brighton bluenose, it would appear 81% of residents agree with me !
You're wasting your breath!

The Greens are convinced that the 81% is all one person, multiple voting, just as we moanerati here are just the one person waging a hate campaign against them.

They have delusions of a glorious victory here, one where the 19% are actually 100% of Brighton residents, waving flags in the street in thanks for defeating the national government on behalf of the B&H council tax payer.

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to find this totally blinkered adherance to their ideology scary. Their current actions look like political suicide, they alienate almost everyone, if not through their spin and dodgy accountancy then through their neglect of basic council services. It might be ok if their own core values were being fulfilled, but with reducing recycling rates, increasing polution levels and with many locals now (rightly or wrongly) blaming them for the death of pedestrians - true greens and ecologists must, like me, be wondering just what does drive these people.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Oh and brighton bluenose, it would appear 81% of residents agree with me ![/p][/quote]You're wasting your breath! The Greens are convinced that the 81% is all one person, multiple voting, just as we moanerati here are just the one person waging a hate campaign against them. They have delusions of a glorious victory here, one where the 19% are actually 100% of Brighton residents, waving flags in the street in thanks for defeating the national government on behalf of the B&H council tax payer. Don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to find this totally blinkered adherance to their ideology scary. Their current actions look like political suicide, they alienate almost everyone, if not through their spin and dodgy accountancy then through their neglect of basic council services. It might be ok if their own core values were being fulfilled, but with reducing recycling rates, increasing polution levels and with many locals now (rightly or wrongly) blaming them for the death of pedestrians - true greens and ecologists must, like me, be wondering just what does drive these people. Richada
  • Score: 19

4:44pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

Costs of a referendum resulting in a "no" vote are now estimated by council officers to be around £900,000.
Costs of a referendum resulting in a "no" vote are now estimated by council officers to be around £900,000. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 16

4:47pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
Costs of a referendum resulting in a "no" vote are now estimated by council officers to be around £900,000.
WOW, WOW, WOW.

Come on Argus - time to report this.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: Costs of a referendum resulting in a "no" vote are now estimated by council officers to be around £900,000.[/p][/quote]WOW, WOW, WOW. Come on Argus - time to report this. Fight_Back
  • Score: 12

6:17pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Costs of a referendum resulting in a "no" vote are now estimated by council officers to be around £900,000.
WOW, WOW, WOW.

Come on Argus - time to report this.
Yes I agree

Is this true?? It would be an INCREDIBLE waste of our money if it was.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: Costs of a referendum resulting in a "no" vote are now estimated by council officers to be around £900,000.[/p][/quote]WOW, WOW, WOW. Come on Argus - time to report this.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree Is this true?? It would be an INCREDIBLE waste of our money if it was. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 13

6:35pm Mon 10 Feb 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
The voting is probably due more to general dissatisfaction with the Green Party, both the Council and the MP with their loony schemes such as chopping half of the trees down in Wild Park, attempting to set up illegal shooting galleries in the City and their 300% hike in parking fees and now installing a totally unnecessary 200 yard stretch of bus lane on Edward Street.. I will be surprised if the number of Green Councillors reaches double figures after the next election.
Interestingly, the person who was directly responsible for cutting down the trees illegally without obtaining a permit from the Forestry Commission has recently been promoted by this Green Council. Doubtless with a payrise.

This in spite of the fact that the Council was forced to spend an undisclosed sum having to plant trees elsewhere in compensation to avoid an embarrassing prosecution.

It would be interesting to know how many people applied for the newly-created post that he now holds, and where it was advertised. (Perhaps Cllr Pete West, who has been his staunchist defender, could tell us?)

In the real world of course, this individual would have been looking for another job awhile back, and his salary could have been a saving.

Further evidence of Council croneyism and nepotism? Certainly another indicator of irresponsible financial management again by the Greens, at the very least.
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: The voting is probably due more to general dissatisfaction with the Green Party, both the Council and the MP with their loony schemes such as chopping half of the trees down in Wild Park, attempting to set up illegal shooting galleries in the City and their 300% hike in parking fees and now installing a totally unnecessary 200 yard stretch of bus lane on Edward Street.. I will be surprised if the number of Green Councillors reaches double figures after the next election.[/p][/quote]Interestingly, the person who was directly responsible for cutting down the trees illegally without obtaining a permit from the Forestry Commission has recently been promoted by this Green Council. Doubtless with a payrise. This in spite of the fact that the Council was forced to spend an undisclosed sum having to plant trees elsewhere in compensation to avoid an embarrassing prosecution. It would be interesting to know how many people applied for the newly-created post that he now holds, and where it was advertised. (Perhaps Cllr Pete West, who has been his staunchist defender, could tell us?) In the real world of course, this individual would have been looking for another job awhile back, and his salary could have been a saving. Further evidence of Council croneyism and nepotism? Certainly another indicator of irresponsible financial management again by the Greens, at the very least. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 15

7:03pm Mon 10 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
We will vote against the 4.75% increase and the referendum. The Tories will too so it won't happen. The Greens will then say that we have voted through cuts to the most vulnerable. We've had just a couple of days to look through their budget. There are £2m in "unachieved savings" in social care. There is an extra £100,000 being put in to the traveller budget - the same additional amount they put in last year and the year before. They have put aside half a million to cover the costs of a referendum and a no vote. In fact there are around five million pounds in "contingency funding" and "service presure money" that is allocated to these and other unspecified areas of spending which would entirely offset the need for the cuts to social care. The Greens have failed to make savings in their budget over two years. They are protecting cretain areas from cuts, even adding money to them. They are proposing cuts in social care and then saying that we have to agree big rises in council tax to stop them - but they have failed to get their financial house in order and are held hostage by their own ideologies. We won't let the Greens make people who can't afford it pay for Green failure and Tory cuts.
I am looking forward to you actually having to be specific about what you will cut in the budget debate. You have tried to frame the debate in terms of its one off referendum cost but fail to mention that this is to raise revenue year on year. The Labour Party, cosied up with its Tory chums to prevent a 2% rise two years ago; this has already resulted in an annual revenue loss in the region of £3-4 million, all for a headline in the Argus and to try to put the skids undr the Green administration.

Next year, we will start the budget discussion £26million down from this year with another £20+million to be taken from that budget. In 2015 people face a choice of voting in a Tory or Labour government that will end government grant funding altogether. Shameful.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: We will vote against the 4.75% increase and the referendum. The Tories will too so it won't happen. The Greens will then say that we have voted through cuts to the most vulnerable. We've had just a couple of days to look through their budget. There are £2m in "unachieved savings" in social care. There is an extra £100,000 being put in to the traveller budget - the same additional amount they put in last year and the year before. They have put aside half a million to cover the costs of a referendum and a no vote. In fact there are around five million pounds in "contingency funding" and "service presure money" that is allocated to these and other unspecified areas of spending which would entirely offset the need for the cuts to social care. The Greens have failed to make savings in their budget over two years. They are protecting cretain areas from cuts, even adding money to them. They are proposing cuts in social care and then saying that we have to agree big rises in council tax to stop them - but they have failed to get their financial house in order and are held hostage by their own ideologies. We won't let the Greens make people who can't afford it pay for Green failure and Tory cuts.[/p][/quote]I am looking forward to you actually having to be specific about what you will cut in the budget debate. You have tried to frame the debate in terms of its one off referendum cost but fail to mention that this is to raise revenue year on year. The Labour Party, cosied up with its Tory chums to prevent a 2% rise two years ago; this has already resulted in an annual revenue loss in the region of £3-4 million, all for a headline in the Argus and to try to put the skids undr the Green administration. Next year, we will start the budget discussion £26million down from this year with another £20+million to be taken from that budget. In 2015 people face a choice of voting in a Tory or Labour government that will end government grant funding altogether. Shameful. HJarrs
  • Score: -17

7:08pm Mon 10 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

"People don't want to pay more tax" shocker!

A council tax rise is not an easy sell. As I have said before, I would have welcomed all three parties in the city presenting a unified front to protect services. Sadly, this is not the case.

Labour and Tories will wring their hands this year and next and try to make as much political capital as possible.
"People don't want to pay more tax" shocker! A council tax rise is not an easy sell. As I have said before, I would have welcomed all three parties in the city presenting a unified front to protect services. Sadly, this is not the case. Labour and Tories will wring their hands this year and next and try to make as much political capital as possible. HJarrs
  • Score: -18

7:39pm Mon 10 Feb 14

JHunty says...

"Local people don't want to pay for Green high tax high spend policy" shocker would be more accurate but you are more concerned with spin. Pushing the tax burden from central government to local tax payers does nothing to "fight" the cuts.
"Local people don't want to pay for Green high tax high spend policy" shocker would be more accurate but you are more concerned with spin. Pushing the tax burden from central government to local tax payers does nothing to "fight" the cuts. JHunty
  • Score: 14

7:59pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

People just don't trust this party not to take the cash and blow the lot on vanity projects for individual councillors to add to their CVs.
They are more ego than eco. Most of us want our recycling collected and they haven't even managed to organise that core service yet they want to become entrepreneurs using our money for tourism projects.
It's like watching uni student black comedy.
People just don't trust this party not to take the cash and blow the lot on vanity projects for individual councillors to add to their CVs. They are more ego than eco. Most of us want our recycling collected and they haven't even managed to organise that core service yet they want to become entrepreneurs using our money for tourism projects. It's like watching uni student black comedy. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 19

8:09pm Mon 10 Feb 14

KarenT says...

As said before, it'll all be over soon. The council tax increase referendum, IF it still rather wastefully goes ahead, will be shot down in flames, and the Green Party will soon be a distant memory, and in years to come they will become an old political joke... "Remember back in the early part of the 21st Century there was something called the Green Party?" It might even become one of those obscure Trivial Pursuit questions in the 'History' category. "What was the name of that quirky now defunct political party that governed Brighton & Hove back in the early 2000's?"... Everyone stop fretting.
As said before, it'll all be over soon. The council tax increase referendum, IF it still rather wastefully goes ahead, will be shot down in flames, and the Green Party will soon be a distant memory, and in years to come they will become an old political joke... "Remember back in the early part of the 21st Century there was something called the Green Party?" It might even become one of those obscure Trivial Pursuit questions in the 'History' category. "What was the name of that quirky now defunct political party that governed Brighton & Hove back in the early 2000's?"... Everyone stop fretting. KarenT
  • Score: 19

8:13pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

HJarrs wrote:
"People don't want to pay more tax" shocker!

A council tax rise is not an easy sell. As I have said before, I would have welcomed all three parties in the city presenting a unified front to protect services. Sadly, this is not the case.

Labour and Tories will wring their hands this year and next and try to make as much political capital as possible.
Green Party in raising Council Tax and then not collecting it shocker!

You are currently 1.29% (about £1,500,000 income loss) below your own collection target as at 31st December 2013.

Despite Jason Kitcat's statement in last week's Argus, that BHCC were at the forefront of open data provision, I'm guessing the actual collection %age for January 2014 (10 days and counting) is being witheld from publication on the BHCC website as it is not good news?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: "People don't want to pay more tax" shocker! A council tax rise is not an easy sell. As I have said before, I would have welcomed all three parties in the city presenting a unified front to protect services. Sadly, this is not the case. Labour and Tories will wring their hands this year and next and try to make as much political capital as possible.[/p][/quote]Green Party in raising Council Tax and then not collecting it shocker! You are currently 1.29% (about £1,500,000 income loss) below your own collection target as at 31st December 2013. Despite Jason Kitcat's statement in last week's Argus, that BHCC were at the forefront of open data provision, I'm guessing the actual collection %age for January 2014 (10 days and counting) is being witheld from publication on the BHCC website as it is not good news? Thay Qon U
  • Score: 18

8:56pm Mon 10 Feb 14

wexler53 says...

What is it about " No, we don't want a 4.75% increase" the greens can't understand?

Not rocket science, is it?
What is it about " No, we don't want a 4.75% increase" the greens can't understand? Not rocket science, is it? wexler53
  • Score: 16

9:05pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
"People don't want to pay more tax" shocker!

A council tax rise is not an easy sell. As I have said before, I would have welcomed all three parties in the city presenting a unified front to protect services. Sadly, this is not the case.

Labour and Tories will wring their hands this year and next and try to make as much political capital as possible.
Well who gave it to them eh?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: "People don't want to pay more tax" shocker! A council tax rise is not an easy sell. As I have said before, I would have welcomed all three parties in the city presenting a unified front to protect services. Sadly, this is not the case. Labour and Tories will wring their hands this year and next and try to make as much political capital as possible.[/p][/quote]Well who gave it to them eh? Richada
  • Score: 8

10:54pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

HJarrs wrote:
"People don't want to pay more tax" shocker!

A council tax rise is not an easy sell. As I have said before, I would have welcomed all three parties in the city presenting a unified front to protect services. Sadly, this is not the case.

Labour and Tories will wring their hands this year and next and try to make as much political capital as possible.
So if it's so obvious that people won't vote for a tax rise why burn between £230k and £900k on a referendum you already know the answer to then ? Ah yes, so the Greens can say "well you the public voted for the cuts to the vulnerable in this city - it's your doing not ours".

The cowards way out. Just close the door behind you.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: "People don't want to pay more tax" shocker! A council tax rise is not an easy sell. As I have said before, I would have welcomed all three parties in the city presenting a unified front to protect services. Sadly, this is not the case. Labour and Tories will wring their hands this year and next and try to make as much political capital as possible.[/p][/quote]So if it's so obvious that people won't vote for a tax rise why burn between £230k and £900k on a referendum you already know the answer to then ? Ah yes, so the Greens can say "well you the public voted for the cuts to the vulnerable in this city - it's your doing not ours". The cowards way out. Just close the door behind you. Fight_Back
  • Score: 10

1:16am Tue 11 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
People just don't trust this party not to take the cash and blow the lot on vanity projects for individual councillors to add to their CVs.
They are more ego than eco. Most of us want our recycling collected and they haven't even managed to organise that core service yet they want to become entrepreneurs using our money for tourism projects.
It's like watching uni student black comedy.
You've hit the nail on the head there. The problem is that the Greens have proven to us on numerous occasions that they just can't be trusted with money. It's a bit like giving your slightly strange mate money knowing that he's going to blow it on something pointless!

The Greens clearly have been a social experiment gone wrong. The sooner these fools leave out city the better, my only concern is how much more havoc can they cause before they go?
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: People just don't trust this party not to take the cash and blow the lot on vanity projects for individual councillors to add to their CVs. They are more ego than eco. Most of us want our recycling collected and they haven't even managed to organise that core service yet they want to become entrepreneurs using our money for tourism projects. It's like watching uni student black comedy.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head there. The problem is that the Greens have proven to us on numerous occasions that they just can't be trusted with money. It's a bit like giving your slightly strange mate money knowing that he's going to blow it on something pointless! The Greens clearly have been a social experiment gone wrong. The sooner these fools leave out city the better, my only concern is how much more havoc can they cause before they go? Ambo Guy
  • Score: 9

6:31am Tue 11 Feb 14

brighton bluenose says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
We will vote against the 4.75% increase and the referendum. The Tories will too so it won't happen.

The Greens will then say that we have voted through cuts to the most vulnerable. We've had just a couple of days to look through their budget.

There are £2m in "unachieved savings" in social care. There is an extra £100,000 being put in to the traveller budget - the same additional amount they put in last year and the year before. They have put aside half a million to cover the costs of a referendum and a no vote.

In fact there are around five million pounds in "contingency funding" and "service presure money" that is allocated to these and other unspecified areas of spending which would entirely offset the need for the cuts to social care.

The Greens have failed to make savings in their budget over two years. They are protecting cretain areas from cuts, even adding money to them. They are proposing cuts in social care and then saying that we have to agree big rises in council tax to stop them - but they have failed to get their financial house in order and are held hostage by their own ideologies.

We won't let the Greens make people who can't afford it pay for Green failure and Tory cuts.
The gap between rich and poor got wider under a Labour government Warren! 40% or so of kids in the city live below the poverty line - that hasnt just happened in two years or so of a Green administration! You are as bad as the Tories and Labour are just as responsible for the economic mess we ars in as they are - Labour cannot be trusted!!
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: We will vote against the 4.75% increase and the referendum. The Tories will too so it won't happen. The Greens will then say that we have voted through cuts to the most vulnerable. We've had just a couple of days to look through their budget. There are £2m in "unachieved savings" in social care. There is an extra £100,000 being put in to the traveller budget - the same additional amount they put in last year and the year before. They have put aside half a million to cover the costs of a referendum and a no vote. In fact there are around five million pounds in "contingency funding" and "service presure money" that is allocated to these and other unspecified areas of spending which would entirely offset the need for the cuts to social care. The Greens have failed to make savings in their budget over two years. They are protecting cretain areas from cuts, even adding money to them. They are proposing cuts in social care and then saying that we have to agree big rises in council tax to stop them - but they have failed to get their financial house in order and are held hostage by their own ideologies. We won't let the Greens make people who can't afford it pay for Green failure and Tory cuts.[/p][/quote]The gap between rich and poor got wider under a Labour government Warren! 40% or so of kids in the city live below the poverty line - that hasnt just happened in two years or so of a Green administration! You are as bad as the Tories and Labour are just as responsible for the economic mess we ars in as they are - Labour cannot be trusted!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -5

6:46am Tue 11 Feb 14

brighton bluenose says...

Not one of the rsgular posters on here - Richarda, fight back, M Ghost et al discuss the issue of the year on year cuts that we are going to have to suffer for the foreseeable future - all as a result of Tory/Labour failure! You think the city has problems now - wait to see how its run in 4/5 years time when government funding is cut to ZERO!
How do you think the city js going to operate when (at todays rates) the government has withdrawn their £318 million of the £770 million currently required??!!
Efficiency savings my backside!!! It is £318 million pounds of jobs, services, care for the old, the ill and the needy and money spent locally yet you lot are almost desperate for it!!
Not one of the rsgular posters on here - Richarda, fight back, M Ghost et al discuss the issue of the year on year cuts that we are going to have to suffer for the foreseeable future - all as a result of Tory/Labour failure! You think the city has problems now - wait to see how its run in 4/5 years time when government funding is cut to ZERO! How do you think the city js going to operate when (at todays rates) the government has withdrawn their £318 million of the £770 million currently required??!! Efficiency savings my backside!!! It is £318 million pounds of jobs, services, care for the old, the ill and the needy and money spent locally yet you lot are almost desperate for it!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -5

6:53am Tue 11 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

At last someone who also sees the disgraceful state of poverty in the city. We all see it which is why is sickens us to our stomachs to see Davey wandering around erecting marquees to celebrate the Lewes Road cycle lane which has actually existed for more than a decade.
Then we have councillors wanting to get involved with tourism projects, we have one of our MPs banging on about page 3 models and fracking in a posh village not even in our area.
The greens were a party of individuals with their own personal agendas and people weren't even on that list which is why they are being shown the door. Its been like watching a good old 17thcentury revolution take place were the peasants are sick of the landed gentry wasting money while people starve.
sadly the Greens are a load of old workless and mainly retired men who have lost touch with wider society and don't understand people.
At last someone who also sees the disgraceful state of poverty in the city. We all see it which is why is sickens us to our stomachs to see Davey wandering around erecting marquees to celebrate the Lewes Road cycle lane which has actually existed for more than a decade. Then we have councillors wanting to get involved with tourism projects, we have one of our MPs banging on about page 3 models and fracking in a posh village not even in our area. The greens were a party of individuals with their own personal agendas and people weren't even on that list which is why they are being shown the door. Its been like watching a good old 17thcentury revolution take place were the peasants are sick of the landed gentry wasting money while people starve. sadly the Greens are a load of old workless and mainly retired men who have lost touch with wider society and don't understand people. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 6

9:24am Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Not one of the rsgular posters on here - Richarda, fight back, M Ghost et al discuss the issue of the year on year cuts that we are going to have to suffer for the foreseeable future - all as a result of Tory/Labour failure! You think the city has problems now - wait to see how its run in 4/5 years time when government funding is cut to ZERO!
How do you think the city js going to operate when (at todays rates) the government has withdrawn their £318 million of the £770 million currently required??!!
Efficiency savings my backside!!! It is £318 million pounds of jobs, services, care for the old, the ill and the needy and money spent locally yet you lot are almost desperate for it!!
I can't and don't speak for the others who you mention here, but personally I WOULD discuss the issue of the budget cuts IF the Green council had been running the council properly up to this point, but it hasn't.

They have proven so woefully inadaquate at doing so, discussing future budgets with the Green counci administering them is akin to discussing re-fuelling the Titanic.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Not one of the rsgular posters on here - Richarda, fight back, M Ghost et al discuss the issue of the year on year cuts that we are going to have to suffer for the foreseeable future - all as a result of Tory/Labour failure! You think the city has problems now - wait to see how its run in 4/5 years time when government funding is cut to ZERO! How do you think the city js going to operate when (at todays rates) the government has withdrawn their £318 million of the £770 million currently required??!! Efficiency savings my backside!!! It is £318 million pounds of jobs, services, care for the old, the ill and the needy and money spent locally yet you lot are almost desperate for it!![/p][/quote]I can't and don't speak for the others who you mention here, but personally I WOULD discuss the issue of the budget cuts IF the Green council had been running the council properly up to this point, but it hasn't. They have proven so woefully inadaquate at doing so, discussing future budgets with the Green counci administering them is akin to discussing re-fuelling the Titanic. Richada
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree