Brighton and Hove Labour vows to try and halt Green Party's 4.75% council tax rise

Brighton and Hove Labour vows to try and halt Green Party's 4.75% council tax rise

Brighton and Hove Labour vows to try and halt Green Party's 4.75% council tax rise

First published in News
Last updated
by , local government reporter

Labour has vowed to block Brighton and Hove Green Party’s attempt to raise council tax by nearly 5% as it prepares for the council’s budget showdown on Thursday.

Labour leader Warren Morgan said the money put aside for a referendum on a 4.75% tax increase – thought to be about £900,000 – would be used to support council services.

In particular he said it would be used to fund Able & Willing, a council supported business that employs people with learning disabilities.

Laying out his party’s objections to the Green budget, Coun Morgan said: “The Green budget is a political one, we will stop their costly council tax referendum and block the unaffordable
increase, using the money instead to reverse cuts to social care and maintain services – like park cleaning at weekends – that the Greens have said they will cut.

“Our focus is on people not politics.”

A decision on the budget will be made at a Brighton and Hove City Council meeting on Thursday afternoon.

Coun Warren also said Labour would be offering an amendment to the budget to reverse potential cuts in grant funding to dozens of community groups across the city.

He added: “These community grants are essential to keeping many organisations’ heads above water. “It’s wrong at a time like this to hit community groups with cuts.”

Coun Morgan said Labour would suspend funding for the Green’s tree planting scheme while putting another year’s funding into the annual Pride street parade.

He said: “We think it is essential to keep these services to children going, instead of adding yet more money to the travellers’ budget as the Green’s are proposing.

“We think these are the right prioritiesfor the city and residents, we would like to do more to focus spending on jobs, homes, and schools, fixing potholes and helping people struggling
with the cost of living, but that will have to wait till after the elections in 400 days time when we hope to see the endof this Green council.”

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:54am Mon 24 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year. Eugenius
  • Score: -50

9:41am Mon 24 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ????

Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ???? Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted. Fight_Back
  • Score: 48

10:09am Mon 24 Feb 14

s_james says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ????

Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.
Presumably a no vote would mean a 2% rise which would raise £2M
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ???? Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.[/p][/quote]Presumably a no vote would mean a 2% rise which would raise £2M s_james
  • Score: 14

10:29am Mon 24 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ????

Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.
The specific cost of holding the referendum vote is £213k.

If the public were to vote for 4.75% then all the costs would be covered with a small surplus which would go towards the discretionary council tax reduction fund but officers have recently highlighted significant ancillary costs for a No result which would have to be partly met from next year's budget. It's this cost which Labour are attempting to use in the allocations for their amendment to this year's budget which looks like dodgy accounting to me.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ???? Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.[/p][/quote]The specific cost of holding the referendum vote is £213k. If the public were to vote for 4.75% then all the costs would be covered with a small surplus which would go towards the discretionary council tax reduction fund but officers have recently highlighted significant ancillary costs for a No result which would have to be partly met from next year's budget. It's this cost which Labour are attempting to use in the allocations for their amendment to this year's budget which looks like dodgy accounting to me. Eugenius
  • Score: -35

10:43am Mon 24 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ????

Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.
The specific cost of holding the referendum vote is £213k.

If the public were to vote for 4.75% then all the costs would be covered with a small surplus which would go towards the discretionary council tax reduction fund but officers have recently highlighted significant ancillary costs for a No result which would have to be partly met from next year's budget. It's this cost which Labour are attempting to use in the allocations for their amendment to this year's budget which looks like dodgy accounting to me.
So the referendum still burns taxpayers money ? NICE !!!!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ???? Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.[/p][/quote]The specific cost of holding the referendum vote is £213k. If the public were to vote for 4.75% then all the costs would be covered with a small surplus which would go towards the discretionary council tax reduction fund but officers have recently highlighted significant ancillary costs for a No result which would have to be partly met from next year's budget. It's this cost which Labour are attempting to use in the allocations for their amendment to this year's budget which looks like dodgy accounting to me.[/p][/quote]So the referendum still burns taxpayers money ? NICE !!!! Fight_Back
  • Score: 38

10:44am Mon 24 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

s_james wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ????

Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.
Presumably a no vote would mean a 2% rise which would raise £2M
It's rather arrogant of the Greens to think a No vote would automatically mean any increase. Why would the freeze option not still be on the table ?
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ???? Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.[/p][/quote]Presumably a no vote would mean a 2% rise which would raise £2M[/p][/quote]It's rather arrogant of the Greens to think a No vote would automatically mean any increase. Why would the freeze option not still be on the table ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 28

10:45am Mon 24 Feb 14

ARealBessie says...

With all due respect to our city's gay residents, I don't think that Pride is an essential service, or even an essential community organisation.Now days it's little more than a big knees up frivolity and an excuse for yet another big drunken party. And, it's not as if Brighton doesn't have enough of those.

I was reading earlier today that the Social Fund has now been cut. So no more Social Fund no more Crisis Loans, benefits across the board being cut or scrapped, introduction of bedroom tax, cuts to the NHS, cuts to Legal Aid (do people realise you can no longer get legal advice from the CAB?) and now the Tories are proposing charges on those who appeal against bad DWP judgements! lol, and that's on top of the new gagging laws....The list just goes on and on as the Tories go about dismantling what little remains of the welfare state along with our essential democratic processes that underpin it.
Unfortunately, on both local and national levels Labour has been pretty pathetic in opposition, and far from robustly speaking out, has gone along with a great many of these cuts (or unfair, disproportionate taxation on the poorest in society, such as the 'bedroom tax'.)
Mr Morgan has made a couple of promising noises, but frankly they don't go anywhere near far enough and when talk veers into finding funding for such things as street parties, I have to wonder whether a vote for Labour is as much of a waste as a vote for the Greens.
With all due respect to our city's gay residents, I don't think that Pride is an essential service, or even an essential community organisation.Now days it's little more than a big knees up frivolity and an excuse for yet another big drunken party. And, it's not as if Brighton doesn't have enough of those. I was reading earlier today that the Social Fund has now been cut. So no more Social Fund no more Crisis Loans, benefits across the board being cut or scrapped, introduction of bedroom tax, cuts to the NHS, cuts to Legal Aid (do people realise you can no longer get legal advice from the CAB?) and now the Tories are proposing charges on those who appeal against bad DWP judgements! lol, and that's on top of the new gagging laws....The list just goes on and on as the Tories go about dismantling what little remains of the welfare state along with our essential democratic processes that underpin it. Unfortunately, on both local and national levels Labour has been pretty pathetic in opposition, and far from robustly speaking out, has gone along with a great many of these cuts (or unfair, disproportionate taxation on the poorest in society, such as the 'bedroom tax'.) Mr Morgan has made a couple of promising noises, but frankly they don't go anywhere near far enough and when talk veers into finding funding for such things as street parties, I have to wonder whether a vote for Labour is as much of a waste as a vote for the Greens. ARealBessie
  • Score: 15

10:47am Mon 24 Feb 14

s_james says...

Fight_Back wrote:
s_james wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ????

Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.
Presumably a no vote would mean a 2% rise which would raise £2M
It's rather arrogant of the Greens to think a No vote would automatically mean any increase. Why would the freeze option not still be on the table ?
Because Labour are in favour of a 2% rise, so they and the Greens would vote it through. Only the Tories support a freeze.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ???? Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.[/p][/quote]Presumably a no vote would mean a 2% rise which would raise £2M[/p][/quote]It's rather arrogant of the Greens to think a No vote would automatically mean any increase. Why would the freeze option not still be on the table ?[/p][/quote]Because Labour are in favour of a 2% rise, so they and the Greens would vote it through. Only the Tories support a freeze. s_james
  • Score: 14

10:48am Mon 24 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Eugenius: -

What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about.

Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it?

The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party
Eugenius: - What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about. Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it? The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 34

10:49am Mon 24 Feb 14

Bristol VR says...

We voted for all the councilors so that they could make a balanced decision amongst themselves on how they finance the budget within the parameters set by parliament. There is absolutely no reason why they should be involving us in such a decision when we have entrusted them to do it for us. Either stick to the 2% rise and deal with it (like we all have had to stick to 1% or 0% pay rises) or don't have a rise at all. If they come back to us for a decision because they can't work it out for themselves then that decision should be an early council election to remove the incompetent leading party and elect a council that can make a proper decision without fannying about like they are.

No referendum please just get on and do the job you were elected to do!!
We voted for all the councilors so that they could make a balanced decision amongst themselves on how they finance the budget within the parameters set by parliament. There is absolutely no reason why they should be involving us in such a decision when we have entrusted them to do it for us. Either stick to the 2% rise and deal with it (like we all have had to stick to 1% or 0% pay rises) or don't have a rise at all. If they come back to us for a decision because they can't work it out for themselves then that decision should be an early council election to remove the incompetent leading party and elect a council that can make a proper decision without fannying about like they are. No referendum please just get on and do the job you were elected to do!! Bristol VR
  • Score: 41

10:57am Mon 24 Feb 14

Stephen Vinall says...

It’s the same old flannel and posturing from Morgan – hardly bright or original! Both the Green’s and Labour have lost touch with the local electorate and it’s just a game of positioning ready for the 2015 local elections – hope you’ve got some “fresh” ideas for your manifestos? The Green’s are dead after their shambolic social experiment in Brighton & Hove and Labour need to get off their a**es and re-engage with local people, rather than sit snuggly in the Town Hall claiming expenses. Morgan needs to remember, this time round Labour have got to work for our votes – if you don’t, you’ll end up in the wilderness. Think on!!
It’s the same old flannel and posturing from Morgan – hardly bright or original! Both the Green’s and Labour have lost touch with the local electorate and it’s just a game of positioning ready for the 2015 local elections – hope you’ve got some “fresh” ideas for your manifestos? The Green’s are dead after their shambolic social experiment in Brighton & Hove and Labour need to get off their a**es and re-engage with local people, rather than sit snuggly in the Town Hall claiming expenses. Morgan needs to remember, this time round Labour have got to work for our votes – if you don’t, you’ll end up in the wilderness. Think on!! Stephen Vinall
  • Score: 8

10:59am Mon 24 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

"Coun Warren also promised that if his party gets into power in elections next year, Labour will reverse the cut in grant funding to dozens of community groups across the city." - that's actually one of our amendments for this Thursday, not a pledge for next year.
"Coun Warren also promised that if his party gets into power in elections next year, Labour will reverse the cut in grant funding to dozens of community groups across the city." - that's actually one of our amendments for this Thursday, not a pledge for next year. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 16

11:04am Mon 24 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius: -

What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about.

Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it?

The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party
It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Eugenius: - What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about. Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it? The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party[/p][/quote]It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund. Eugenius
  • Score: -23

11:13am Mon 24 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ????

Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.
The specific cost of holding the referendum vote is £213k.

If the public were to vote for 4.75% then all the costs would be covered with a small surplus which would go towards the discretionary council tax reduction fund but officers have recently highlighted significant ancillary costs for a No result which would have to be partly met from next year's budget. It's this cost which Labour are attempting to use in the allocations for their amendment to this year's budget which looks like dodgy accounting to me.
Good avoidance of the question ...... as usual !!!!

Labour may well be mis-accounting ( it wouldn't be the first time ! ) but the Greens are refusing to state where the referendum costs will come from if it is lost. You can't use next years money as the costs have to be met this year.

Dishonesty from the Greens as usual.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]How on earth would a No vote "raise" funds ???? Besides, it's clear that the referendum would be lost so regardless of the cost being £306k ( strange how the Greens quoted £230k first of all ! ) or £900k it's still OUR hard earned money being wasted.[/p][/quote]The specific cost of holding the referendum vote is £213k. If the public were to vote for 4.75% then all the costs would be covered with a small surplus which would go towards the discretionary council tax reduction fund but officers have recently highlighted significant ancillary costs for a No result which would have to be partly met from next year's budget. It's this cost which Labour are attempting to use in the allocations for their amendment to this year's budget which looks like dodgy accounting to me.[/p][/quote]Good avoidance of the question ...... as usual !!!! Labour may well be mis-accounting ( it wouldn't be the first time ! ) but the Greens are refusing to state where the referendum costs will come from if it is lost. You can't use next years money as the costs have to be met this year. Dishonesty from the Greens as usual. Fight_Back
  • Score: 19

12:36pm Mon 24 Feb 14

downbythesea says...

It's plainly obvious from opinion polls in the Argus, and local surveys, that people are NOT going to vote for a nearly 5% increase in the money that THIS council is wasting on frivolous vanity projects, Lewes Road cycle lane, Old Shoreham road cycle lane (virtually always empty), un-enforced 20mph schemes, Station gateway project (as if anyone coming to Brighton cares about traffic outside the station), 7 dials roundabout (mixed view on this one, good scheme but EXCESSIVELY expensive in my opinion).

The Greens seem to think (and before Eugenius and cronies whine & bleat) I have voted for the Greens once, also the Conservatives, also Labour, and even the Liberals way back when, so I have no political "axe" as such to grind) that they have an overwhelming mandate to do what they want with OUR money in a minority council.

I hope that Labour & the Conservatives stick to their guns and block these Loony losers at every single opportunity as they seek to waste OUR money on madcap schemes and lunatic referendums where the outcome is already a certainty!

I don't care who runs the council, but not these utter lunatics anymore.
It's plainly obvious from opinion polls in the Argus, and local surveys, that people are NOT going to vote for a nearly 5% increase in the money that THIS council is wasting on frivolous vanity projects, Lewes Road cycle lane, Old Shoreham road cycle lane (virtually always empty), un-enforced 20mph schemes, Station gateway project (as if anyone coming to Brighton cares about traffic outside the station), 7 dials roundabout (mixed view on this one, good scheme but EXCESSIVELY expensive in my opinion). The Greens seem to think (and before Eugenius and cronies whine & bleat) I have voted for the Greens once, also the Conservatives, also Labour, and even the Liberals way back when, so I have no political "axe" as such to grind) that they have an overwhelming mandate to do what they want with OUR money in a minority council. I hope that Labour & the Conservatives stick to their guns and block these Loony losers at every single opportunity as they seek to waste OUR money on madcap schemes and lunatic referendums where the outcome is already a certainty! I don't care who runs the council, but not these utter lunatics anymore. downbythesea
  • Score: 30

12:40pm Mon 24 Feb 14

DC Brighton says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius: -

What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about.

Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it?

The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party
It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.
Unbelievable! I'm not even sure why I am bothering to write this as it is so obvious, but perhaps you should consider NOT printing anything until the ACTUAL rise is decided upon.

Earth calling Green party......come in Green party....oh sorry, you are not Green after all.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Eugenius: - What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about. Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it? The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party[/p][/quote]It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable! I'm not even sure why I am bothering to write this as it is so obvious, but perhaps you should consider NOT printing anything until the ACTUAL rise is decided upon. Earth calling Green party......come in Green party....oh sorry, you are not Green after all. DC Brighton
  • Score: 20

12:58pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

DC Brighton wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius: -

What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about.

Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it?

The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party
It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.
Unbelievable! I'm not even sure why I am bothering to write this as it is so obvious, but perhaps you should consider NOT printing anything until the ACTUAL rise is decided upon.

Earth calling Green party......come in Green party....oh sorry, you are not Green after all.
This is how the Localism Act prescribes referendums are run, it's not a Green Party preference.
[quote][p][bold]DC Brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Eugenius: - What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about. Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it? The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party[/p][/quote]It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable! I'm not even sure why I am bothering to write this as it is so obvious, but perhaps you should consider NOT printing anything until the ACTUAL rise is decided upon. Earth calling Green party......come in Green party....oh sorry, you are not Green after all.[/p][/quote]This is how the Localism Act prescribes referendums are run, it's not a Green Party preference. Eugenius
  • Score: -10

12:59pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius: -

What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about.

Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it?

The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party
It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.
The Green Party's understanding and defence of the Council Tax Increase Referendum gets even shakier.

Eugenius - are you sure that you mean "a refund" as in a physical return of money by cheque if the Referendum vote were 'No'?

If you are suggesting that, then the costs of the Referendum and subsequent re-billing will be increased for the labour, stationery, postage etc. costs of these 'Refunds'.

Even ignoring all of the re-billing costs (120K CT bills, envelopes, statutory inserts (ignoring the additional prinatge for those that must go out with revised bills for normal 'changes' next year) & postage) and the equivalent costs in recalculating and revised notification letters to people who are entitled to Council Tax Benefits,(say 40K notification letters, envelopes, postage etc.), what about the negative cash flow impacts, costs of handling additional customer enquiries during the 'hazy' period from April 1st to May 22nd?

The negative cash flow impact/income loss alone could easily amount to £3,000,000 even if only a conservative 10% of the April, May & June typical CT income (£30M) is adversely affected by the uncertainty surrounding the Referendum and Council Tax levy (Version 1? .....or Version 2?). Don't tell me that this lost income will be collected in subsequent months because it won't.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Eugenius: - What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about. Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it? The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party[/p][/quote]It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.[/p][/quote]The Green Party's understanding and defence of the Council Tax Increase Referendum gets even shakier. Eugenius - are you sure that you mean "a refund" as in a physical return of money by cheque if the Referendum vote were 'No'? If you are suggesting that, then the costs of the Referendum and subsequent re-billing will be increased for the labour, stationery, postage etc. costs of these 'Refunds'. Even ignoring all of the re-billing costs (120K CT bills, envelopes, statutory inserts (ignoring the additional prinatge for those that must go out with revised bills for normal 'changes' next year) & postage) and the equivalent costs in recalculating and revised notification letters to people who are entitled to Council Tax Benefits,(say 40K notification letters, envelopes, postage etc.), what about the negative cash flow impacts, costs of handling additional customer enquiries during the 'hazy' period from April 1st to May 22nd? The negative cash flow impact/income loss alone could easily amount to £3,000,000 even if only a conservative 10% of the April, May & June typical CT income (£30M) is adversely affected by the uncertainty surrounding the Referendum and Council Tax levy (Version 1? .....or Version 2?). Don't tell me that this lost income will be collected in subsequent months because it won't. Thay Qon U
  • Score: 14

1:30pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining.

We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining. We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 20

1:48pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

ARealBessie wrote:
With all due respect to our city's gay residents, I don't think that Pride is an essential service, or even an essential community organisation.Now days it's little more than a big knees up frivolity and an excuse for yet another big drunken party. And, it's not as if Brighton doesn't have enough of those.

I was reading earlier today that the Social Fund has now been cut. So no more Social Fund no more Crisis Loans, benefits across the board being cut or scrapped, introduction of bedroom tax, cuts to the NHS, cuts to Legal Aid (do people realise you can no longer get legal advice from the CAB?) and now the Tories are proposing charges on those who appeal against bad DWP judgements! lol, and that's on top of the new gagging laws....The list just goes on and on as the Tories go about dismantling what little remains of the welfare state along with our essential democratic processes that underpin it.
Unfortunately, on both local and national levels Labour has been pretty pathetic in opposition, and far from robustly speaking out, has gone along with a great many of these cuts (or unfair, disproportionate taxation on the poorest in society, such as the 'bedroom tax'.)
Mr Morgan has made a couple of promising noises, but frankly they don't go anywhere near far enough and when talk veers into finding funding for such things as street parties, I have to wonder whether a vote for Labour is as much of a waste as a vote for the Greens.
It's £25k (out of a budget of £750 million) to support the street parade specifically - its enjoyed by thousands and brings in a lot of trade for city shops and restaurants which many people rely on for jobs. It is for one year only while they try to get their own income up.

I disagree that Labour nationally has been quiet on the issues you mention - we have pledged to abolish the Bedroom Tax on day one of a Labour government next May. All three of our Parliamentary candidates were at the local event against the gaging bill.
[quote][p][bold]ARealBessie[/bold] wrote: With all due respect to our city's gay residents, I don't think that Pride is an essential service, or even an essential community organisation.Now days it's little more than a big knees up frivolity and an excuse for yet another big drunken party. And, it's not as if Brighton doesn't have enough of those. I was reading earlier today that the Social Fund has now been cut. So no more Social Fund no more Crisis Loans, benefits across the board being cut or scrapped, introduction of bedroom tax, cuts to the NHS, cuts to Legal Aid (do people realise you can no longer get legal advice from the CAB?) and now the Tories are proposing charges on those who appeal against bad DWP judgements! lol, and that's on top of the new gagging laws....The list just goes on and on as the Tories go about dismantling what little remains of the welfare state along with our essential democratic processes that underpin it. Unfortunately, on both local and national levels Labour has been pretty pathetic in opposition, and far from robustly speaking out, has gone along with a great many of these cuts (or unfair, disproportionate taxation on the poorest in society, such as the 'bedroom tax'.) Mr Morgan has made a couple of promising noises, but frankly they don't go anywhere near far enough and when talk veers into finding funding for such things as street parties, I have to wonder whether a vote for Labour is as much of a waste as a vote for the Greens.[/p][/quote]It's £25k (out of a budget of £750 million) to support the street parade specifically - its enjoyed by thousands and brings in a lot of trade for city shops and restaurants which many people rely on for jobs. It is for one year only while they try to get their own income up. I disagree that Labour nationally has been quiet on the issues you mention - we have pledged to abolish the Bedroom Tax on day one of a Labour government next May. All three of our Parliamentary candidates were at the local event against the gaging bill. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 9

1:49pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Martha Gunn says...

The Green Party themselves do not believe they can win this referendum.

It is a stunt pulled by Kitcat, Lucas and company.

And when the vote goes against them there is no ambiguity about the cost to all of us of their antics - it is the very thick end of One Million Pounds!
The Green Party themselves do not believe they can win this referendum. It is a stunt pulled by Kitcat, Lucas and company. And when the vote goes against them there is no ambiguity about the cost to all of us of their antics - it is the very thick end of One Million Pounds! Martha Gunn
  • Score: 15

2:00pm Mon 24 Feb 14

gheese77 says...

I thought labour was the party of tax and spend. Oh yes I forgot only if the spending is on banks or wars
I thought labour was the party of tax and spend. Oh yes I forgot only if the spending is on banks or wars gheese77
  • Score: -3

2:13pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining.

We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.
It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining. We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.[/p][/quote]It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services. Eugenius
  • Score: -14

3:10pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining.

We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.
It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.
I guess you believe that the Greens can't win the argument themselves without Labour's assistance then ? That highlights what a pathetic political stunt it really is.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining. We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.[/p][/quote]It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.[/p][/quote]I guess you believe that the Greens can't win the argument themselves without Labour's assistance then ? That highlights what a pathetic political stunt it really is. Fight_Back
  • Score: 9

3:37pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Sir Prised says...

Bristol VR wrote:
We voted for all the councilors so that they could make a balanced decision amongst themselves on how they finance the budget within the parameters set by parliament. There is absolutely no reason why they should be involving us in such a decision when we have entrusted them to do it for us. Either stick to the 2% rise and deal with it (like we all have had to stick to 1% or 0% pay rises) or don't have a rise at all. If they come back to us for a decision because they can't work it out for themselves then that decision should be an early council election to remove the incompetent leading party and elect a council that can make a proper decision without fannying about like they are.

No referendum please just get on and do the job you were elected to do!!
I'd like to see far more referenda which could be included at election time. Presently our democracy is a joke, reduced to voting for the party who you think will do least damage and very little positive about it at all. It's even worse when the outcome in a coalition, when the electorate have absolutely no idea which policies will be pursued after the stitch-up between party leaders. Even is not strictly binding, it would provide informed guidance on the administration what the puiblic favoured, it this happend. An example is that you might well support the Greens yet be totally opposed to the 20MPH scheme. If such important proposals were put to a referendum, I believe it would both legitimise decisons and even re-engage an increasingly disillusioned electorate.
[quote][p][bold]Bristol VR[/bold] wrote: We voted for all the councilors so that they could make a balanced decision amongst themselves on how they finance the budget within the parameters set by parliament. There is absolutely no reason why they should be involving us in such a decision when we have entrusted them to do it for us. Either stick to the 2% rise and deal with it (like we all have had to stick to 1% or 0% pay rises) or don't have a rise at all. If they come back to us for a decision because they can't work it out for themselves then that decision should be an early council election to remove the incompetent leading party and elect a council that can make a proper decision without fannying about like they are. No referendum please just get on and do the job you were elected to do!![/p][/quote]I'd like to see far more referenda which could be included at election time. Presently our democracy is a joke, reduced to voting for the party who you think will do least damage and very little positive about it at all. It's even worse when the outcome in a coalition, when the electorate have absolutely no idea which policies will be pursued after the stitch-up between party leaders. Even is not strictly binding, it would provide informed guidance on the administration what the puiblic favoured, it this happend. An example is that you might well support the Greens yet be totally opposed to the 20MPH scheme. If such important proposals were put to a referendum, I believe it would both legitimise decisons and even re-engage an increasingly disillusioned electorate. Sir Prised
  • Score: 6

3:39pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Richada says...

Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
And it's going to cost you nothing to re-issue all of the council tax bills is it?
How about the cost of administering the changes required?

Maybe instead of wasting our money wherever you possibly can (for example spending an estimated £10,000 on a High Court case in order to defend a breach of your own planning consent, reported elsewhere today) the Green Party should actually act in the interests of those who fund the council - i.e. the Council Tax payers.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]And it's going to cost you nothing to re-issue all of the council tax bills is it? How about the cost of administering the changes required? Maybe instead of wasting our money wherever you possibly can (for example spending an estimated £10,000 on a High Court case in order to defend a breach of your own planning consent, reported elsewhere today) the Green Party should actually act in the interests of those who fund the council - i.e. the Council Tax payers. Richada
  • Score: 14

3:55pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Richada says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius: -

What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about.

Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it?

The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party
It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.
Yes, but whichever way round it is done, the cost of issuing the bills will be the same.

Oh yippee they're going to give us a refund having wasted all this money in order to find out that we don't want and can't afford a 4.75% council tax increase.

As already said.....an absolute farce.....one that is costing us dearly already and is set to hit us even harder.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Eugenius: - What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about. Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it? The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party[/p][/quote]It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.[/p][/quote]Yes, but whichever way round it is done, the cost of issuing the bills will be the same. Oh yippee they're going to give us a refund having wasted all this money in order to find out that we don't want and can't afford a 4.75% council tax increase. As already said.....an absolute farce.....one that is costing us dearly already and is set to hit us even harder. Richada
  • Score: 13

4:00pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Richada says...

DC Brighton wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius: -

What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about.

Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it?

The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party
It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.
Unbelievable! I'm not even sure why I am bothering to write this as it is so obvious, but perhaps you should consider NOT printing anything until the ACTUAL rise is decided upon.

Earth calling Green party......come in Green party....oh sorry, you are not Green after all.
If they actually turn up and collect the recycling maybe they could recycle the old bills into the new bills......

......along the lines of the reissued dustbin rotas that, in our case at least, weren't worth the paper that they were printed on.
[quote][p][bold]DC Brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Eugenius: - What about the costs of sending a letter to EVERY SINGLE house hold telling them there council tax is being raised? Another pure waste of admin that could be spent on these essential services you bang on about. Oh and what about the leaflets coming through peoples doors telling them about it? The whole thing is an absolute farce, just like your party[/p][/quote]It's done the other way round - if the referendum is approved then bills go out with the 4.75% increase (£2.62 per month or less for the average household compared to Labour's proposal) so no additional cost at that point. If the referendum is held and lost then everyone gets a refund.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable! I'm not even sure why I am bothering to write this as it is so obvious, but perhaps you should consider NOT printing anything until the ACTUAL rise is decided upon. Earth calling Green party......come in Green party....oh sorry, you are not Green after all.[/p][/quote]If they actually turn up and collect the recycling maybe they could recycle the old bills into the new bills...... ......along the lines of the reissued dustbin rotas that, in our case at least, weren't worth the paper that they were printed on. Richada
  • Score: 12

4:17pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Mark63 says...

They just need to bring a halt to their obsession with anti car policies and spend that money more wisely...
They just need to bring a halt to their obsession with anti car policies and spend that money more wisely... Mark63
  • Score: 14

4:18pm Mon 24 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Eugenius wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining.

We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.
It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.
"People aren't as selfish as you fear." This makes me livid. You really have no idea how much people are struggling at the moment. Even if Labour supported you, it would be highly unlikely you would win the referendum. But Labour aren't supporting you, so you may as well take the money and burn it. At least that way, a few homeless people could stand round the fire and get warm.

Getting very confused on the figures - not long ago it was £213k or something like that, now you are saying it is £306k and Labour say it is £900k, so which is it?

I think Pride is a great event but it really should be self sufficient. I do object to £25k being given to Pride when essential services are being cut. If 40,000 people attend it then that's less than a £1 on each ticket, so just charge more for entry.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining. We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.[/p][/quote]It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.[/p][/quote]"People aren't as selfish as you fear." This makes me livid. You really have no idea how much people are struggling at the moment. Even if Labour supported you, it would be highly unlikely you would win the referendum. But Labour aren't supporting you, so you may as well take the money and burn it. At least that way, a few homeless people could stand round the fire and get warm. Getting very confused on the figures - not long ago it was £213k or something like that, now you are saying it is £306k and Labour say it is £900k, so which is it? I think Pride is a great event but it really should be self sufficient. I do object to £25k being given to Pride when essential services are being cut. If 40,000 people attend it then that's less than a £1 on each ticket, so just charge more for entry. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 9

9:06pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

Eugenius wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining.

We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.
It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.
Just out of interest and because I'm curious about this : - when do you decide to post under this name and when do you post under HJarrs? Is it a one day off one day on thing for using both names or just a random thing?

Really, I'm quite intrigued.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining. We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.[/p][/quote]It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.[/p][/quote]Just out of interest and because I'm curious about this : - when do you decide to post under this name and when do you post under HJarrs? Is it a one day off one day on thing for using both names or just a random thing? Really, I'm quite intrigued. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 5

10:39pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining.

We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.
It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.
Just out of interest and because I'm curious about this : - when do you decide to post under this name and when do you post under HJarrs? Is it a one day off one day on thing for using both names or just a random thing?

Really, I'm quite intrigued.
I don't post here under any other names.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining. We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.[/p][/quote]It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.[/p][/quote]Just out of interest and because I'm curious about this : - when do you decide to post under this name and when do you post under HJarrs? Is it a one day off one day on thing for using both names or just a random thing? Really, I'm quite intrigued.[/p][/quote]I don't post here under any other names. Eugenius
  • Score: -4

12:11pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

Eugenius wrote:
Ambo Guy wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist.

The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget.

So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.
Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining.

We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.
It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.
Just out of interest and because I'm curious about this : - when do you decide to post under this name and when do you post under HJarrs? Is it a one day off one day on thing for using both names or just a random thing?

Really, I'm quite intrigued.
I don't post here under any other names.
Ok so next question:

Are you a member of the Green Party?

HJarrs said he/she wasn't, then accidentally told us all that he was in one of his posts and refuses to discuss it anymore!

So are you a Green Party member?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: There is £306k set aside for the cost of the referendum, so if Warren is making out this is £900k he is being economical with the truth and proposing to spend money which doesn't exist. The money set aside for the referendum is a contingency reserve and the outturn depends on the outcome of the vote - a 'Yes' vote would raise £4.75m in revenue and create a surplus in one-off funds of £156k; a 'No' vote would raise £2m and create a deficit of £583k (due to rebilling and having to implement accelerated cuts) which would have to be recovered from next year's budget. So it looks like Warren's proposal is to borrow money from next year's budget (when there will be another £20m gap to close thanks to central government austerity measures) to pay for one-off spend for one year only. That's a cynical cop-out and will just lead to more cuts next year.[/p][/quote]Officers have confirmed that the cost of a referendum ending in a "no" vote would be just under £900,000 at the latest estimate. We are using the £306 "unallocated reserves" to pay for Able & Willing to keep going for another year during which time the council can look at procuring services (ie ordering goods) from them so that they become self sustaining. We are not proposing any borrowing from next year's budget. Yes there will be more Tory cuts next year - but unlike the Greens we are not prepared to pass on the costs of those cuts to people who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.[/p][/quote]It's arrogant of Labour to decide for the people that they should face more cuts without giving them the option to vote for an alternative plan. People aren't as selfish as you fear, and I still believe a joint campaign by Labour and Greens for 4.75% would carry the Yes vote, which is by far the best option for the future of social care services.[/p][/quote]Just out of interest and because I'm curious about this : - when do you decide to post under this name and when do you post under HJarrs? Is it a one day off one day on thing for using both names or just a random thing? Really, I'm quite intrigued.[/p][/quote]I don't post here under any other names.[/p][/quote]Ok so next question: Are you a member of the Green Party? HJarrs said he/she wasn't, then accidentally told us all that he was in one of his posts and refuses to discuss it anymore! So are you a Green Party member? Ambo Guy
  • Score: 4

6:41pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Ania Green says...

Yet again we see Warren Morgan causing trouble against us. He is finding that it's much easier to be in opposition and shouting your mouth off than come up with any real concrete ideas of his own.

The Green Party have done a fantastic job in this city and I'm sure will win another term in 2015.
Yet again we see Warren Morgan causing trouble against us. He is finding that it's much easier to be in opposition and shouting your mouth off than come up with any real concrete ideas of his own. The Green Party have done a fantastic job in this city and I'm sure will win another term in 2015. Ania Green
  • Score: -2

8:22pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Richada says...

Ania Green wrote:
Yet again we see Warren Morgan causing trouble against us. He is finding that it's much easier to be in opposition and shouting your mouth off than come up with any real concrete ideas of his own.

The Green Party have done a fantastic job in this city and I'm sure will win another term in 2015.
I prefer to think of it as an incredible job.

i.e. So not credible that this council is not fit for purpose.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: Yet again we see Warren Morgan causing trouble against us. He is finding that it's much easier to be in opposition and shouting your mouth off than come up with any real concrete ideas of his own. The Green Party have done a fantastic job in this city and I'm sure will win another term in 2015.[/p][/quote]I prefer to think of it as an incredible job. i.e. So not credible that this council is not fit for purpose. Richada
  • 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