The ArgusGreens in U-turn on privatisation plans (From The Argus)

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

Greens in U-turn on privatisation plans

The Argus: Jason Kitcat Jason Kitcat

A DECISION on privatising support for disabled adults has been postponed after unions “threatened merry hell”.

Green party leader Jason Kitcat deferred the decision after receiving “feedback” about the plans and visiting council learning disability services in Brighton and Hove.

He said: “I believe we need to have a wider look at the council’s learning disability services in the round, rather than in a piecemeal way.

“The time is right to take a step back to look at best practice and research evidence from elsewhere.

“Our ambition must be to modernise our services to provide the best possible outcomes for all service users with learning disabilities.”

Green councillors have been accused of “bottling out” of a tough decision and bowing to union pressure.

The withdrawn proposal, which was due to be discussed today, could have seen seven supported living homes and flats for up to 43 adults with learning disabilities transferred to a private company.

The move would have saved the council £300,000 a year and a 90-day consultation was set to be launched at this afternoon’s Health and Wellbeing Board meeting.

The seven homes in Beaconsfield Villas, Liphook Close, Cromwell Road, Hawkhurst Road, Lennox Street, Rutland Gardens and Leicester Villas were set up more than 20 years ago to replace long-stay hospitals.

Criticism The decision to withdraw the plans were welcomed by unions who slammed the original proposals, which they claimed would lead to staff losses and reduction in quality of service.

They were also critical of the way the proposals were released, claiming they were not consulted on the matter.

But Conservative adult social care spokesman Councillor Ken Norman said: “This really is no way to run a council.

“Every time officers propose to modernise a council service by bringing in an alternative provider, for example from the independent or voluntary sector, the trade union bosses threaten merry hell and the Greens, dutifully followed by the Labour group, back down.

“Our NHS partners who are about to join us for the first meeting of the new health and wellbeing board must wonder what on earth they have let themselves in for.”

Labour group leader and health and wellbeing board member Councillor Warren Morgan said: “The Greens’ decision at the 11th hour to pull the report on the future of homes for people with learning disabilities is yet another example of them bottling out of making tough decisions.

“It leaves us with the worst of both worlds; no decision and no timetable for making one, but worry and uncertainty for residents, their families and the 60 council staff at those care homes.”

Comments (57)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:04am Tue 10 Jun 14

BrighterStar says...

GOOD! The reasons for pulling the report may well be mischevous which is why the oppostion parties are kicking up a stink - they can forsee having to deal with this after the local government elections but frankly I don't care. The Tories would privatise the service because that's what Tories do and the Labour party seem to have sailed off to some distant shore without a coherent policy on anything and nothing that is befitting of the name "Labour Party" As for "Modernisation" read "Cut Price" and "Privatisation." Care is a service and for many working in it; a vocation for those living within it; their WHOLE lives, it should not be a means of turning a quick buck.
GOOD! The reasons for pulling the report may well be mischevous which is why the oppostion parties are kicking up a stink - they can forsee having to deal with this after the local government elections but frankly I don't care. The Tories would privatise the service because that's what Tories do and the Labour party seem to have sailed off to some distant shore without a coherent policy on anything and nothing that is befitting of the name "Labour Party" As for "Modernisation" read "Cut Price" and "Privatisation." Care is a service and for many working in it; a vocation for those living within it; their WHOLE lives, it should not be a means of turning a quick buck. BrighterStar
  • Score: 31

9:07am Tue 10 Jun 14

Martha Gunn says...

Green Leadership?

Oxymoronic!
Green Leadership? Oxymoronic! Martha Gunn
  • Score: 52

9:11am Tue 10 Jun 14

Andy R says...

Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......
Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first...... Andy R
  • Score: -6

9:14am Tue 10 Jun 14

Andy R says...

And as for Warren Morgan - how much worry and uncertainty is entailed in some cowboy outfit taking over?

LABOUR Party.......the clue used to be in the title.......
And as for Warren Morgan - how much worry and uncertainty is entailed in some cowboy outfit taking over? LABOUR Party.......the clue used to be in the title....... Andy R
  • Score: -13

9:33am Tue 10 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

Greens sought a referendum this year to raise council tax by 4.75% to compensate for the savage cuts to our funding from central government, but seeing as that wasn't supported the need to make cost savings in this area (one way or another) remains. Labour and Tories voted for a cuts budget.

That said, it is possible for a service review to bring positive benefits to service users as well. One win-win proposal we made in the budget was to reduce expensive out-of-city placements, which would bring adults placed in care outside the city back into Brighton and Hove, closer to their loved ones.

The committee paper which Jason has had withdrawn mentions use of private sector providers as being one option on which to consult service users but that wasn't really the Greens' intention, in the budget it just says

"We will consider alternative models of care to include supported living. We will continue to explore models for providing care, looking for opportunities that provide better outcomes and a more efficient service, both within the council and through other providers.”

The council already uses third sector not-for-profit providers for elements of the service so it seems reasonable to look at whether it would make sense to go further in this direction as part of the review. The fact is with less money in the budget something has got to give. Expect to see the review back on the agenda at a future meeting once further discussions have taken place, it should be possible for everyone to come to a common understanding on the best way forwards.
Greens sought a referendum this year to raise council tax by 4.75% to compensate for the savage cuts to our funding from central government, but seeing as that wasn't supported the need to make cost savings in this area (one way or another) remains. Labour and Tories voted for a cuts budget. That said, it is possible for a service review to bring positive benefits to service users as well. One win-win proposal we made in the budget was to reduce expensive out-of-city placements, which would bring adults placed in care outside the city back into Brighton and Hove, closer to their loved ones. The committee paper which Jason has had withdrawn mentions use of private sector providers as being one option on which to consult service users but that wasn't really the Greens' intention, in the budget it just says "We will consider alternative models of care to include supported living. We will continue to explore models for providing care, looking for opportunities that provide better outcomes and a more efficient service, both within the council and through other providers.” The council already uses third sector not-for-profit providers for elements of the service so it seems reasonable to look at whether it would make sense to go further in this direction as part of the review. The fact is with less money in the budget something has got to give. Expect to see the review back on the agenda at a future meeting once further discussions have taken place, it should be possible for everyone to come to a common understanding on the best way forwards. Eugenius
  • Score: -23

9:45am Tue 10 Jun 14

Plantpot says...

Andy R wrote:
Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......
Is this comment for the benefit of the people receiving the service or trade unionists? I remember growing up with this sort of language in the 60's and 70's and was delighted when the unions got thoroughly reformed in the 80's. Looks like there's still plenty more to be done though.....
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......[/p][/quote]Is this comment for the benefit of the people receiving the service or trade unionists? I remember growing up with this sort of language in the 60's and 70's and was delighted when the unions got thoroughly reformed in the 80's. Looks like there's still plenty more to be done though..... Plantpot
  • Score: 6

10:03am Tue 10 Jun 14

Andy R says...

Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......
Is this comment for the benefit of the people receiving the service or trade unionists? I remember growing up with this sort of language in the 60's and 70's and was delighted when the unions got thoroughly reformed in the 80's. Looks like there's still plenty more to be done though.....
Both - the service users and the union members looking after them are completely united in opposition to privatisation. I know this must be a crushing disappointment to people who like to break "the unions" off from the rest of society, so sorry to break it to you like this.....
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......[/p][/quote]Is this comment for the benefit of the people receiving the service or trade unionists? I remember growing up with this sort of language in the 60's and 70's and was delighted when the unions got thoroughly reformed in the 80's. Looks like there's still plenty more to be done though.....[/p][/quote]Both - the service users and the union members looking after them are completely united in opposition to privatisation. I know this must be a crushing disappointment to people who like to break "the unions" off from the rest of society, so sorry to break it to you like this..... Andy R
  • Score: 6

10:53am Tue 10 Jun 14

Omnishambles_1 says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
Green Leadership?

Oxymoronic!
Martha Gunn - Making Cheap Points?? Moronic
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Green Leadership? Oxymoronic![/p][/quote]Martha Gunn - Making Cheap Points?? Moronic Omnishambles_1
  • Score: -26

10:56am Tue 10 Jun 14

Roundbill says...

Eugenius wrote:
Greens sought a referendum this year to raise council tax by 4.75% to compensate for the savage cuts to our funding from central government, but seeing as that wasn't supported the need to make cost savings in this area (one way or another) remains. Labour and Tories voted for a cuts budget.

That said, it is possible for a service review to bring positive benefits to service users as well. One win-win proposal we made in the budget was to reduce expensive out-of-city placements, which would bring adults placed in care outside the city back into Brighton and Hove, closer to their loved ones.

The committee paper which Jason has had withdrawn mentions use of private sector providers as being one option on which to consult service users but that wasn't really the Greens' intention, in the budget it just says

"We will consider alternative models of care to include supported living. We will continue to explore models for providing care, looking for opportunities that provide better outcomes and a more efficient service, both within the council and through other providers.”

The council already uses third sector not-for-profit providers for elements of the service so it seems reasonable to look at whether it would make sense to go further in this direction as part of the review. The fact is with less money in the budget something has got to give. Expect to see the review back on the agenda at a future meeting once further discussions have taken place, it should be possible for everyone to come to a common understanding on the best way forwards.
Jason, is it really appropriate for you to be commenting on here? Surely you should be using official channels?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Greens sought a referendum this year to raise council tax by 4.75% to compensate for the savage cuts to our funding from central government, but seeing as that wasn't supported the need to make cost savings in this area (one way or another) remains. Labour and Tories voted for a cuts budget. That said, it is possible for a service review to bring positive benefits to service users as well. One win-win proposal we made in the budget was to reduce expensive out-of-city placements, which would bring adults placed in care outside the city back into Brighton and Hove, closer to their loved ones. The committee paper which Jason has had withdrawn mentions use of private sector providers as being one option on which to consult service users but that wasn't really the Greens' intention, in the budget it just says "We will consider alternative models of care to include supported living. We will continue to explore models for providing care, looking for opportunities that provide better outcomes and a more efficient service, both within the council and through other providers.” The council already uses third sector not-for-profit providers for elements of the service so it seems reasonable to look at whether it would make sense to go further in this direction as part of the review. The fact is with less money in the budget something has got to give. Expect to see the review back on the agenda at a future meeting once further discussions have taken place, it should be possible for everyone to come to a common understanding on the best way forwards.[/p][/quote]Jason, is it really appropriate for you to be commenting on here? Surely you should be using official channels? Roundbill
  • Score: 24

11:45am Tue 10 Jun 14

ourcoalition says...

2010 - ConDem Government - the cuts will not affect "front-line services". Same in 2011/12/13. And in 2014 - silence.

As for those 'orrible Trade Unions - yes, the only real opposition left, in the face of the vandals running the country.

Why does this service need privatizing? It costs too much, compared to the private and voluntary sectors, because those same Unions have negotiated decent pay and conditions. Another case of the race to the lowest common denominator.
2010 - ConDem Government - the cuts will not affect "front-line services". Same in 2011/12/13. And in 2014 - silence. As for those 'orrible Trade Unions - yes, the only real opposition left, in the face of the vandals running the country. Why does this service need privatizing? It costs too much, compared to the private and voluntary sectors, because those same Unions have negotiated decent pay and conditions. Another case of the race to the lowest common denominator. ourcoalition
  • Score: 0

11:49am Tue 10 Jun 14

pachallis says...

Good to see the official green party spokespersons closing ranks to support their leader.

It's just quite surprising that the green party, which in it's manifesto is totally against privatisation of the NHS and wants to re-nationalise energy, rail and water industries, would even consider such a move that would upset the anti-capitalist socialist green-left?
Good to see the official green party spokespersons closing ranks to support their leader. It's just quite surprising that the green party, which in it's manifesto is totally against privatisation of the NHS and wants to re-nationalise energy, rail and water industries, would even consider such a move that would upset the anti-capitalist socialist green-left? pachallis
  • Score: 18

11:51am Tue 10 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

It is intriguing that there appear to be so many people commenting under anonymous aliases that seem to either work for the council, or are of an even "higher authority" (God excluded).

Surely as Roundhill Bill says if there are indeed council employees or higher on here defending council policies and slating any opposition that they should be posting under their own names or via official channels?

Come on Argus, you've got the IP addresses…. time to find out! It's happened elsewhere http://www.holdthefr
ontpage.co.uk/2012/n
ews/newspaper-expose
s-council-leader-for
-anonymous-website-c
omments/
It is intriguing that there appear to be so many people commenting under anonymous aliases that seem to either work for the council, or are of an even "higher authority" (God excluded). Surely as Roundhill Bill says if there are indeed council employees or higher on here defending council policies and slating any opposition that they should be posting under their own names or via official channels? Come on Argus, you've got the IP addresses…. time to find out! It's happened elsewhere http://www.holdthefr ontpage.co.uk/2012/n ews/newspaper-expose s-council-leader-for -anonymous-website-c omments/ Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 5

12:08pm Tue 10 Jun 14

clubrob6 says...

I'm not surprised by the conservative councillors comment as the con's are quietly privatising the NHS as we speak.If they get into power next year we can say goodbye to the NHS.Just like we will be saying goodbye to Southlands hospital as its just about closed down now.I think the greens have done right in delaying any privatisation.
I'm not surprised by the conservative councillors comment as the con's are quietly privatising the NHS as we speak.If they get into power next year we can say goodbye to the NHS.Just like we will be saying goodbye to Southlands hospital as its just about closed down now.I think the greens have done right in delaying any privatisation. clubrob6
  • Score: -11

12:48pm Tue 10 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Andy R wrote:
Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......
Surely, tax payer funded services should be run the right way (whatever that might mean), not the way to prevent unions from blackmailing the council and the local community.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......[/p][/quote]Surely, tax payer funded services should be run the right way (whatever that might mean), not the way to prevent unions from blackmailing the council and the local community. fredaj
  • Score: 12

1:09pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Fight_Back says...

clubrob6 wrote:
I'm not surprised by the conservative councillors comment as the con's are quietly privatising the NHS as we speak.If they get into power next year we can say goodbye to the NHS.Just like we will be saying goodbye to Southlands hospital as its just about closed down now.I think the greens have done right in delaying any privatisation.
Where exactly does the Tory manifesto say the NHS is to be privatised ? My partner needed non-invasive surgery but the NHS couldn't provide it in one of their hospitals for over a year. Instead he GP sent her to a private hospital and it was completed within 6 weeks at no cost to us. If that's what privatisation means then I'm all for it.
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: I'm not surprised by the conservative councillors comment as the con's are quietly privatising the NHS as we speak.If they get into power next year we can say goodbye to the NHS.Just like we will be saying goodbye to Southlands hospital as its just about closed down now.I think the greens have done right in delaying any privatisation.[/p][/quote]Where exactly does the Tory manifesto say the NHS is to be privatised ? My partner needed non-invasive surgery but the NHS couldn't provide it in one of their hospitals for over a year. Instead he GP sent her to a private hospital and it was completed within 6 weeks at no cost to us. If that's what privatisation means then I'm all for it. Fight_Back
  • Score: 9

1:19pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Uncle Ruckus (No Relation) says...

ourcoalition wrote:
2010 - ConDem Government - the cuts will not affect "front-line services". Same in 2011/12/13. And in 2014 - silence.

As for those 'orrible Trade Unions - yes, the only real opposition left, in the face of the vandals running the country.

Why does this service need privatizing? It costs too much, compared to the private and voluntary sectors, because those same Unions have negotiated decent pay and conditions. Another case of the race to the lowest common denominator.
Green spokesperson HJarrs will not doubt be along shortly to support and defend the wretched, incompetent and incapable 'snot' Greens...
[quote][p][bold]ourcoalition[/bold] wrote: 2010 - ConDem Government - the cuts will not affect "front-line services". Same in 2011/12/13. And in 2014 - silence. As for those 'orrible Trade Unions - yes, the only real opposition left, in the face of the vandals running the country. Why does this service need privatizing? It costs too much, compared to the private and voluntary sectors, because those same Unions have negotiated decent pay and conditions. Another case of the race to the lowest common denominator.[/p][/quote]Green spokesperson HJarrs will not doubt be along shortly to support and defend the wretched, incompetent and incapable 'snot' Greens... Uncle Ruckus (No Relation)
  • Score: 4

1:27pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Andy R says...

fredaj wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......
Surely, tax payer funded services should be run the right way (whatever that might mean), not the way to prevent unions from blackmailing the council and the local community.
"Blackmailing"? What are you even talking about? Do you reckon we've got explicit polaroids of all the councillors or something? I should come in out of the sun if I were you.

That this piece of asset stripping has been binned (if only for the time being) is brilliant. That it's got the Tories and their assorted wingnut supporters on here in a lather is just the icing on the cake.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......[/p][/quote]Surely, tax payer funded services should be run the right way (whatever that might mean), not the way to prevent unions from blackmailing the council and the local community.[/p][/quote]"Blackmailing"? What are you even talking about? Do you reckon we've got explicit polaroids of all the councillors or something? I should come in out of the sun if I were you. That this piece of asset stripping has been binned (if only for the time being) is brilliant. That it's got the Tories and their assorted wingnut supporters on here in a lather is just the icing on the cake. Andy R
  • Score: 1

1:39pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Fight_Back says...

Andy R wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......
Surely, tax payer funded services should be run the right way (whatever that might mean), not the way to prevent unions from blackmailing the council and the local community.
"Blackmailing"? What are you even talking about? Do you reckon we've got explicit polaroids of all the councillors or something? I should come in out of the sun if I were you.

That this piece of asset stripping has been binned (if only for the time being) is brilliant. That it's got the Tories and their assorted wingnut supporters on here in a lather is just the icing on the cake.
Striking is blackmailing but just legal.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......[/p][/quote]Surely, tax payer funded services should be run the right way (whatever that might mean), not the way to prevent unions from blackmailing the council and the local community.[/p][/quote]"Blackmailing"? What are you even talking about? Do you reckon we've got explicit polaroids of all the councillors or something? I should come in out of the sun if I were you. That this piece of asset stripping has been binned (if only for the time being) is brilliant. That it's got the Tories and their assorted wingnut supporters on here in a lather is just the icing on the cake.[/p][/quote]Striking is blackmailing but just legal. Fight_Back
  • Score: 3

2:44pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Louley says...

They start by closing down their day centres, now they're targeting their homes. Selling off to the private sector to make a quick buck while there are millions in unseen "art" hidden away in vaults where no body can see it...
WHAT IS THIS....?
Pick on the most vulnerable year...?
And from what I've seen, these programmes that show abuse, neglect, issues In care/residential homes are mostly THE PRIVATE SECTOR....
There must be somewhere else the council can save money??!!
They start by closing down their day centres, now they're targeting their homes. Selling off to the private sector to make a quick buck while there are millions in unseen "art" hidden away in vaults where no body can see it... WHAT IS THIS....? Pick on the most vulnerable year...? And from what I've seen, these programmes that show abuse, neglect, issues In care/residential homes are mostly THE PRIVATE SECTOR.... There must be somewhere else the council can save money??!! Louley
  • Score: 11

3:28pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Andy R says...

Louley wrote:
They start by closing down their day centres, now they're targeting their homes. Selling off to the private sector to make a quick buck while there are millions in unseen "art" hidden away in vaults where no body can see it...
WHAT IS THIS....?
Pick on the most vulnerable year...?
And from what I've seen, these programmes that show abuse, neglect, issues In care/residential homes are mostly THE PRIVATE SECTOR....
There must be somewhere else the council can save money??!!
Indeed. But apparently when we fight back it's "blackmail". They'll be calling us "greedy" next......
[quote][p][bold]Louley[/bold] wrote: They start by closing down their day centres, now they're targeting their homes. Selling off to the private sector to make a quick buck while there are millions in unseen "art" hidden away in vaults where no body can see it... WHAT IS THIS....? Pick on the most vulnerable year...? And from what I've seen, these programmes that show abuse, neglect, issues In care/residential homes are mostly THE PRIVATE SECTOR.... There must be somewhere else the council can save money??!![/p][/quote]Indeed. But apparently when we fight back it's "blackmail". They'll be calling us "greedy" next...... Andy R
  • Score: 1

4:06pm Tue 10 Jun 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

I was appalled to find out the green council in Brighton and hove wanted to privitise services for the disabled. Why choose the most vulnerable in society? Disgusting.

I suggest all who had a part in this resign now.

I had been thinking of voting green in the general elections but you've lost my vote now as you've shown your true colours.

I also will not be voting con/libdem/lab/ukip as I have had enough of them all and don't believe any of them.
I was appalled to find out the green council in Brighton and hove wanted to privitise services for the disabled. Why choose the most vulnerable in society? Disgusting. I suggest all who had a part in this resign now. I had been thinking of voting green in the general elections but you've lost my vote now as you've shown your true colours. I also will not be voting con/libdem/lab/ukip as I have had enough of them all and don't believe any of them. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 6

5:15pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Uncle Ruckus (No Relation) says...

Never forget how much the wretched, incompetent, incapable and spiteful Green Party HATE the working classes and the most vulnerable..,
Never forget how much the wretched, incompetent, incapable and spiteful Green Party HATE the working classes and the most vulnerable.., Uncle Ruckus (No Relation)
  • Score: 3

5:35pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Bill in Hanover says...

The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.
The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 9

5:44pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
I was appalled to find out the green council in Brighton and hove wanted to privitise services for the disabled. Why choose the most vulnerable in society? Disgusting.

I suggest all who had a part in this resign now.

I had been thinking of voting green in the general elections but you've lost my vote now as you've shown your true colours.

I also will not be voting con/libdem/lab/ukip as I have had enough of them all and don't believe any of them.
We don't want to privatise any council services and remain politically opposed to privatisation. The wording of the consultation option in the paper which was pulled from the agenda has caused some difficulty here and it was best to reign it in.

The council budget has already been cut to the bone by this coalition. We were resolute that the right thing to do this year was to ask the public in a referendum if they would be willing to pay an extra £3 to £5 a month on their household council tax bill to avoid any cuts to services to the elderly or vulnerable. Sadly Labour and Tories wouldn't even let you have a say on the matter so this is where we are now.
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: I was appalled to find out the green council in Brighton and hove wanted to privitise services for the disabled. Why choose the most vulnerable in society? Disgusting. I suggest all who had a part in this resign now. I had been thinking of voting green in the general elections but you've lost my vote now as you've shown your true colours. I also will not be voting con/libdem/lab/ukip as I have had enough of them all and don't believe any of them.[/p][/quote]We don't want to privatise any council services and remain politically opposed to privatisation. The wording of the consultation option in the paper which was pulled from the agenda has caused some difficulty here and it was best to reign it in. The council budget has already been cut to the bone by this coalition. We were resolute that the right thing to do this year was to ask the public in a referendum if they would be willing to pay an extra £3 to £5 a month on their household council tax bill to avoid any cuts to services to the elderly or vulnerable. Sadly Labour and Tories wouldn't even let you have a say on the matter so this is where we are now. Eugenius
  • Score: -8

5:49pm Tue 10 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Ooh look, all the people that voted for pro-cuts Conservative and Labour now complaining....about cuts!

Warren Morgan's purposeful sabotage of a small council tax rise 2 years ago has cost the city around £6 million and Labours scandelous backing of austerity against a council tax referendum has cost another £3 million. Time to "man up" Warren. These are your cuts.
Ooh look, all the people that voted for pro-cuts Conservative and Labour now complaining....about cuts! Warren Morgan's purposeful sabotage of a small council tax rise 2 years ago has cost the city around £6 million and Labours scandelous backing of austerity against a council tax referendum has cost another £3 million. Time to "man up" Warren. These are your cuts. HJarrs
  • Score: -9

6:03pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

Uncle Ruckus (No Relation) wrote:
Never forget how much the wretched, incompetent, incapable and spiteful Green Party HATE the working classes and the most vulnerable..,
Of course, that's why we were one of the first councils in the country to boost the minimum wage to the higher "living wage" standard and led a successful campaign to get it adopted by more than 100 companies in the private sector in the city too.

The council now spends less on senior management than it has in a decade.

We’ve brought down the ratio between the highest and lowest paid council staff to just over 10:1 by significantly reducing the Chief Executive’s salary and increasing the lowest pay grades.

Since 2011 more than 400 new affordable homes have been built.

We introduced a ground-breaking no-eviction policy for Bedroom Tax victims.

More than 1400 private and council owned homes have been adapted to meet the needs of disabled people in the past two years.

We also ended the council tax discount on second homes.

Sine 2011, free advice to council tenants has helped nearly 400 people access £350,000 in unclaimed benefits and savings on household bills.

Children entitled to free school bus travel, mainly those on free school meals, are now allowed to use their key passes for free travel at evenings and weekends, instead of just to and from school.
[quote][p][bold]Uncle Ruckus (No Relation)[/bold] wrote: Never forget how much the wretched, incompetent, incapable and spiteful Green Party HATE the working classes and the most vulnerable..,[/p][/quote]Of course, that's why we were one of the first councils in the country to boost the minimum wage to the higher "living wage" standard and led a successful campaign to get it adopted by more than 100 companies in the private sector in the city too. The council now spends less on senior management than it has in a decade. We’ve brought down the ratio between the highest and lowest paid council staff to just over 10:1 by significantly reducing the Chief Executive’s salary and increasing the lowest pay grades. Since 2011 more than 400 new affordable homes have been built. We introduced a ground-breaking no-eviction policy for Bedroom Tax victims. More than 1400 private and council owned homes have been adapted to meet the needs of disabled people in the past two years. We also ended the council tax discount on second homes. Sine 2011, free advice to council tenants has helped nearly 400 people access £350,000 in unclaimed benefits and savings on household bills. Children entitled to free school bus travel, mainly those on free school meals, are now allowed to use their key passes for free travel at evenings and weekends, instead of just to and from school. Eugenius
  • Score: -6

6:24pm Tue 10 Jun 14

pachallis says...

Eugenius wrote:
Uncle Ruckus (No Relation) wrote:
Never forget how much the wretched, incompetent, incapable and spiteful Green Party HATE the working classes and the most vulnerable..,
Of course, that's why we were one of the first councils in the country to boost the minimum wage to the higher "living wage" standard and led a successful campaign to get it adopted by more than 100 companies in the private sector in the city too.

The council now spends less on senior management than it has in a decade.

We’ve brought down the ratio between the highest and lowest paid council staff to just over 10:1 by significantly reducing the Chief Executive’s salary and increasing the lowest pay grades.

Since 2011 more than 400 new affordable homes have been built.

We introduced a ground-breaking no-eviction policy for Bedroom Tax victims.

More than 1400 private and council owned homes have been adapted to meet the needs of disabled people in the past two years.

We also ended the council tax discount on second homes.

Sine 2011, free advice to council tenants has helped nearly 400 people access £350,000 in unclaimed benefits and savings on household bills.

Children entitled to free school bus travel, mainly those on free school meals, are now allowed to use their key passes for free travel at evenings and weekends, instead of just to and from school.
So basically, you spent more than you were expecting to get on projects you wanted to do for implementing your left-wing socialist policies rather than being responsible and spending within your budget and now it's everybody else's fault.

So typical Green Party irresponsible incompetence, and wonderful spin from an official Green Party spokesperson!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Uncle Ruckus (No Relation)[/bold] wrote: Never forget how much the wretched, incompetent, incapable and spiteful Green Party HATE the working classes and the most vulnerable..,[/p][/quote]Of course, that's why we were one of the first councils in the country to boost the minimum wage to the higher "living wage" standard and led a successful campaign to get it adopted by more than 100 companies in the private sector in the city too. The council now spends less on senior management than it has in a decade. We’ve brought down the ratio between the highest and lowest paid council staff to just over 10:1 by significantly reducing the Chief Executive’s salary and increasing the lowest pay grades. Since 2011 more than 400 new affordable homes have been built. We introduced a ground-breaking no-eviction policy for Bedroom Tax victims. More than 1400 private and council owned homes have been adapted to meet the needs of disabled people in the past two years. We also ended the council tax discount on second homes. Sine 2011, free advice to council tenants has helped nearly 400 people access £350,000 in unclaimed benefits and savings on household bills. Children entitled to free school bus travel, mainly those on free school meals, are now allowed to use their key passes for free travel at evenings and weekends, instead of just to and from school.[/p][/quote]So basically, you spent more than you were expecting to get on projects you wanted to do for implementing your left-wing socialist policies rather than being responsible and spending within your budget and now it's everybody else's fault. So typical Green Party irresponsible incompetence, and wonderful spin from an official Green Party spokesperson! pachallis
  • Score: 6

6:47pm Tue 10 Jun 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
Ooh look, all the people that voted for pro-cuts Conservative and Labour now complaining....about cuts!

Warren Morgan's purposeful sabotage of a small council tax rise 2 years ago has cost the city around £6 million and Labours scandelous backing of austerity against a council tax referendum has cost another £3 million. Time to "man up" Warren. These are your cuts.
If you didn't receive it then hasn't cost anything . Do you mean potential Revenue?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Ooh look, all the people that voted for pro-cuts Conservative and Labour now complaining....about cuts! Warren Morgan's purposeful sabotage of a small council tax rise 2 years ago has cost the city around £6 million and Labours scandelous backing of austerity against a council tax referendum has cost another £3 million. Time to "man up" Warren. These are your cuts.[/p][/quote]If you didn't receive it then hasn't cost anything . Do you mean potential Revenue? rolivan
  • Score: 3

6:52pm Tue 10 Jun 14

VoxUnpopuli says...

Why do people keep on insisting that The Greens are a party of the left? They may well be in Germany but in the UK the Greens have shown themselves to be on the libertarian right. All Green policies in this local authority have placed the poor, needy or vulnerable at the bottom of a list of their priorities which have far more emphasis on single issue matters such as the environment. Nothing wrong with placing an importance on such issues but not at the expense of the low paid and those who depend on Council services.
Why do people keep on insisting that The Greens are a party of the left? They may well be in Germany but in the UK the Greens have shown themselves to be on the libertarian right. All Green policies in this local authority have placed the poor, needy or vulnerable at the bottom of a list of their priorities which have far more emphasis on single issue matters such as the environment. Nothing wrong with placing an importance on such issues but not at the expense of the low paid and those who depend on Council services. VoxUnpopuli
  • Score: 4

7:07pm Tue 10 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Why do people keep on insisting that The Greens are a party of the left? They may well be in Germany but in the UK the Greens have shown themselves to be on the libertarian right. All Green policies in this local authority have placed the poor, needy or vulnerable at the bottom of a list of their priorities which have far more emphasis on single issue matters such as the environment. Nothing wrong with placing an importance on such issues but not at the expense of the low paid and those who depend on Council services.
I think Eugenius's post makes you look a little stupid. But nice try.
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Why do people keep on insisting that The Greens are a party of the left? They may well be in Germany but in the UK the Greens have shown themselves to be on the libertarian right. All Green policies in this local authority have placed the poor, needy or vulnerable at the bottom of a list of their priorities which have far more emphasis on single issue matters such as the environment. Nothing wrong with placing an importance on such issues but not at the expense of the low paid and those who depend on Council services.[/p][/quote]I think Eugenius's post makes you look a little stupid. But nice try. HJarrs
  • Score: -5

8:16pm Tue 10 Jun 14

pachallis says...

@HJarrs - I guess you've never had any sales and marketing or customer services training? What you don't do is insult someone who you might one day want to vote for you by calling them stupid!

But perhaps you now realise that the 'writing is on the wall', so what is the harm in alienating a few more of the people who will have forced you into getting a different job in May 2015?

That VoxUnpopuli may well have got it wrong and assumed you are not left-wing is immaterial as it is clear that the party you are an official spokesperson for is really controlled by the extreme left-wing and that you have been focussing what money you have direct control onto these socialist polices for poorer minorities at the expense of support for the richer majorities.

The Green parties ecological expenditure does, indeed, seem to be more focussed on getting funding from external sources, but even that, according to your previous posts has run out.

This issue you do seem to have is that now you have run out of finance being unable to get the other parties to agree with a 4.5% increase (after all you are only a minority leading party and did need to get agreement from the opposition - so that you didn't, just shows your lack of sales skills) and now Kitcat and the rest of the finance committee are forced to look for the savings that other, more responsible parties, would have done long ago, but are now being stopped by the trades unions - as you were in the days of the disastrous refuse strike.

The Green Party must now be getting very close to 'melt down' and unfortunately, contrary to your typical spin, it is entirely down to your own incompetent irresponsible actions.
@HJarrs - I guess you've never had any sales and marketing or customer services training? What you don't do is insult someone who you might one day want to vote for you by calling them stupid! But perhaps you now realise that the 'writing is on the wall', so what is the harm in alienating a few more of the people who will have forced you into getting a different job in May 2015? That VoxUnpopuli may well have got it wrong and assumed you are not left-wing is immaterial as it is clear that the party you are an official spokesperson for is really controlled by the extreme left-wing and that you have been focussing what money you have direct control onto these socialist polices for poorer minorities at the expense of support for the richer majorities. The Green parties ecological expenditure does, indeed, seem to be more focussed on getting funding from external sources, but even that, according to your previous posts has run out. This issue you do seem to have is that now you have run out of finance being unable to get the other parties to agree with a 4.5% increase (after all you are only a minority leading party and did need to get agreement from the opposition - so that you didn't, just shows your lack of sales skills) and now Kitcat and the rest of the finance committee are forced to look for the savings that other, more responsible parties, would have done long ago, but are now being stopped by the trades unions - as you were in the days of the disastrous refuse strike. The Green Party must now be getting very close to 'melt down' and unfortunately, contrary to your typical spin, it is entirely down to your own incompetent irresponsible actions. pachallis
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Tue 10 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

And I suppose you Conservative and Labour would have dun it all differently but that’s hearsay but because the Greens have backed out and you would say you would not back down from the trade union’s ok fer do’s the Greens are crape at running Brighton & Hove services but Labour has not been much better in the past and this is just another one of those political gob offs so why is it that Labour supported the Greens when they wanted to do away with the Tenants “Housing Management Concoctive Committee” are yes because like the Greens Labour dose not want to consult with its Tenants on matters that concern there housing and like the Greens Labour doesn’t lessen to what any one truthfully wants but themselves there’s only even been one good party in this city and that has been the Conservative under Mary Mears because she wanted the best for the tenants and residents of B&H but leave it up to the Greens and we will all be tied up in knots leave it up to Labour and everything will full on deaf ears because they only lesson to there own voices chattering away in a dark damp basement room.
And I suppose you Conservative and Labour would have dun it all differently but that’s hearsay but because the Greens have backed out and you would say you would not back down from the trade union’s ok fer do’s the Greens are crape at running Brighton & Hove services but Labour has not been much better in the past and this is just another one of those political gob offs so why is it that Labour supported the Greens when they wanted to do away with the Tenants “Housing Management Concoctive Committee” are yes because like the Greens Labour dose not want to consult with its Tenants on matters that concern there housing and like the Greens Labour doesn’t lessen to what any one truthfully wants but themselves there’s only even been one good party in this city and that has been the Conservative under Mary Mears because she wanted the best for the tenants and residents of B&H but leave it up to the Greens and we will all be tied up in knots leave it up to Labour and everything will full on deaf ears because they only lesson to there own voices chattering away in a dark damp basement room. wippasnapper
  • Score: -4

9:45pm Tue 10 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

Uncle Ruckus (No Relation) wrote:
Never forget how much the wretched, incompetent, incapable and spiteful Green Party HATE the working classes and the most vulnerable..,
Shut up you moron!!
[quote][p][bold]Uncle Ruckus (No Relation)[/bold] wrote: Never forget how much the wretched, incompetent, incapable and spiteful Green Party HATE the working classes and the most vulnerable..,[/p][/quote]Shut up you moron!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -2

9:49pm Tue 10 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.
What a ridiculous comment - travellers were coming to Brighton before the Green (minority) administration gained power and they will still be coming here if the Greens get voted out!!
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous comment - travellers were coming to Brighton before the Green (minority) administration gained power and they will still be coming here if the Greens get voted out!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 2

10:01pm Tue 10 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Why do people keep on insisting that The Greens are a party of the left? They may well be in Germany but in the UK the Greens have shown themselves to be on the libertarian right. All Green policies in this local authority have placed the poor, needy or vulnerable at the bottom of a list of their priorities which have far more emphasis on single issue matters such as the environment. Nothing wrong with placing an importance on such issues but not at the expense of the low paid and those who depend on Council services.
Is that the same local Green Party that have sorted out the inequalities in council staff pay that was left festering by successive Tory and Labour administrations and that could have lumbered the city with legal costs of millions and millions of pounds - like Birmingham? ! Or maybe you are thinking about our local Green Party who campaigned on a Living Wage platform and implemented this on coming to power?!! The reality, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see, is that the Greens have been forced into having to make very difficult decisions due to savage Tory cuts to local authority funding - cuts that have been backed by the Labour Party!!
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Why do people keep on insisting that The Greens are a party of the left? They may well be in Germany but in the UK the Greens have shown themselves to be on the libertarian right. All Green policies in this local authority have placed the poor, needy or vulnerable at the bottom of a list of their priorities which have far more emphasis on single issue matters such as the environment. Nothing wrong with placing an importance on such issues but not at the expense of the low paid and those who depend on Council services.[/p][/quote]Is that the same local Green Party that have sorted out the inequalities in council staff pay that was left festering by successive Tory and Labour administrations and that could have lumbered the city with legal costs of millions and millions of pounds - like Birmingham? ! Or maybe you are thinking about our local Green Party who campaigned on a Living Wage platform and implemented this on coming to power?!! The reality, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see, is that the Greens have been forced into having to make very difficult decisions due to savage Tory cuts to local authority funding - cuts that have been backed by the Labour Party!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 3

10:35pm Tue 10 Jun 14

The Real Phil says...

Along with travelers, immigrants, the unemployed, teachers and other public sector workers the disabled have already been designated a drain on society by the coalition government (nothing to do with the greens - sorry whingers). But the care of disabled adults (or children) should remain the responsibility of national or local government and NOT with freelance profiteers.
Along with travelers, immigrants, the unemployed, teachers and other public sector workers the disabled have already been designated a drain on society by the coalition government (nothing to do with the greens - sorry whingers). But the care of disabled adults (or children) should remain the responsibility of national or local government and NOT with freelance profiteers. The Real Phil
  • Score: 6

10:46pm Tue 10 Jun 14

ourcoalition says...

Answer to all of this - a one-off wealth tax on the richest 1,000 people in the country, would raise £400 billion.
Enough to pay off the deficit, with a lot left over to create full employment and excellent care for the most vulnerable across the UK.

Who could argue with that? (Yes, I know, half the people above, but it was a good idea, all the same!!!).
Answer to all of this - a one-off wealth tax on the richest 1,000 people in the country, would raise £400 billion. Enough to pay off the deficit, with a lot left over to create full employment and excellent care for the most vulnerable across the UK. Who could argue with that? (Yes, I know, half the people above, but it was a good idea, all the same!!!). ourcoalition
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Martha Gunn says...

Oh Dear @ourcoalition!

Basic level elementary economics courses are available at a variety of educational establishments locally. The fees are quite reasonable.

Please take advantage of the opportunity.
Oh Dear @ourcoalition! Basic level elementary economics courses are available at a variety of educational establishments locally. The fees are quite reasonable. Please take advantage of the opportunity. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 2

1:13am Wed 11 Jun 14

Valerie Paynter says...

The Voluntary sector is advertising on twitter, etc. already seeking volunteers to replace trained home helps and professionals - they are SO naive about what is expected and needed and lack of continuity, skills, CRB checks, allsorts is going to stress the elderly, learning and other disabled. There are serious aptiude and accountability issues in using them.

I feel very frightened for the elderly and disabled if the Tories get back in next year and Ken Norman carries on parroting off what officers and Tory central office tell him to think.
The Voluntary sector is advertising on twitter, etc. already seeking volunteers to replace trained home helps and professionals - they are SO naive about what is expected and needed and lack of continuity, skills, CRB checks, allsorts is going to stress the elderly, learning and other disabled. There are serious aptiude and accountability issues in using them. I feel very frightened for the elderly and disabled if the Tories get back in next year and Ken Norman carries on parroting off what officers and Tory central office tell him to think. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 2

1:27am Wed 11 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Andy R wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......
Surely, tax payer funded services should be run the right way (whatever that might mean), not the way to prevent unions from blackmailing the council and the local community.
"Blackmailing"? What are you even talking about? Do you reckon we've got explicit polaroids of all the councillors or something? I should come in out of the sun if I were you.

That this piece of asset stripping has been binned (if only for the time being) is brilliant. That it's got the Tories and their assorted wingnut supporters on here in a lather is just the icing on the cake.
I am reasonably certain that you are not stupid so why are you pretending that you are?
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......[/p][/quote]Surely, tax payer funded services should be run the right way (whatever that might mean), not the way to prevent unions from blackmailing the council and the local community.[/p][/quote]"Blackmailing"? What are you even talking about? Do you reckon we've got explicit polaroids of all the councillors or something? I should come in out of the sun if I were you. That this piece of asset stripping has been binned (if only for the time being) is brilliant. That it's got the Tories and their assorted wingnut supporters on here in a lather is just the icing on the cake.[/p][/quote]I am reasonably certain that you are not stupid so why are you pretending that you are? fredaj
  • Score: 0

3:44am Wed 11 Jun 14

Zeta Function says...

A squabble over saving £300,000?

The highest council tax band Is H for properties over £320.000.
For Band F; properties up to £160,000, CT is £2,220,33. Band H is £3,047,30.

Those in the lower bans pay proportionately more than those in Band H, which covers all the many properties valued over £320,000 which is the price of a small house or 2 bedroom flat. Those in properties valued £1000,000 are also in Band H and over pay the same council tax.

I viewed a property valued at £800,000. Horrible. A shoddy 3 bedroom flat whose value should be much lower.

The housing situation is a scandal. The council tax system is not fit for purpose. Why do we have a system saving well off property owners so much money?
A squabble over saving £300,000? The highest council tax band Is H for properties over £320.000. For Band F; properties up to £160,000, CT is £2,220,33. Band H is £3,047,30. Those in the lower bans pay proportionately more than those in Band H, which covers all the many properties valued over £320,000 which is the price of a small house or 2 bedroom flat. Those in properties valued £1000,000 are also in Band H and over pay the same council tax. I viewed a property valued at £800,000. Horrible. A shoddy 3 bedroom flat whose value should be much lower. The housing situation is a scandal. The council tax system is not fit for purpose. Why do we have a system saving well off property owners so much money? Zeta Function
  • Score: 3

6:57am Wed 11 Jun 14

pachallis says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Bill in Hanover wrote:
The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.
What a ridiculous comment - travellers were coming to Brighton before the Green (minority) administration gained power and they will still be coming here if the Greens get voted out!!
Dear official Green Party spokesperson,

Remember that your party introduced the 'travellers policy' that highlights the special needs of travellers and requires council and police perform assessments before it is decided whether or not they should be moved on, and this has resulted in Brighton and Hove being a magnet for travellers?

So yes, they were coming before the greens, but more are coming now - please learn to accept responsibility for your actions!
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous comment - travellers were coming to Brighton before the Green (minority) administration gained power and they will still be coming here if the Greens get voted out!![/p][/quote]Dear official Green Party spokesperson, Remember that your party introduced the 'travellers policy' that highlights the special needs of travellers and requires council and police perform assessments before it is decided whether or not they should be moved on, and this has resulted in Brighton and Hove being a magnet for travellers? So yes, they were coming before the greens, but more are coming now - please learn to accept responsibility for your actions! pachallis
  • Score: 4

8:00am Wed 11 Jun 14

P.G says...

personally I say well done to the Greens, they have altered their standpoint more than once during their administration, which i respect them for, they at least listen and admit to mistakes or see the need to reappraise situations. Whats wrong with that? Other parties are just the same 'old same old' looking to score cheap political capital. The Greens have done we'll considering their sudden rise to power in the town, despite consistent bashing by the Argus and blinkered opposition politicians and business worthies. Probably they would have fared better in 'opposition' for another 4 years gaining more practical experience as councillors but hey learning on the job isn't such a bad thing. Aside from the Green Council, Ms Lucas has been excellent on the National and world stage, who else could do such a astute and honest representation for Pavilion ward? Her media attention is great for the Town, I will vote for a Green Council and a Green M.P.
personally I say well done to the Greens, they have altered their standpoint more than once during their administration, which i respect them for, they at least listen and admit to mistakes or see the need to reappraise situations. Whats wrong with that? Other parties are just the same 'old same old' looking to score cheap political capital. The Greens have done we'll considering their sudden rise to power in the town, despite consistent bashing by the Argus and blinkered opposition politicians and business worthies. Probably they would have fared better in 'opposition' for another 4 years gaining more practical experience as councillors but hey learning on the job isn't such a bad thing. Aside from the Green Council, Ms Lucas has been excellent on the National and world stage, who else could do such a astute and honest representation for Pavilion ward? Her media attention is great for the Town, I will vote for a Green Council and a Green M.P. P.G
  • Score: -6

8:31am Wed 11 Jun 14

pachallis says...

Zeta Function wrote:
A squabble over saving £300,000?

The highest council tax band Is H for properties over £320.000.
For Band F; properties up to £160,000, CT is £2,220,33. Band H is £3,047,30.

Those in the lower bans pay proportionately more than those in Band H, which covers all the many properties valued over £320,000 which is the price of a small house or 2 bedroom flat. Those in properties valued £1000,000 are also in Band H and over pay the same council tax.

I viewed a property valued at £800,000. Horrible. A shoddy 3 bedroom flat whose value should be much lower.

The housing situation is a scandal. The council tax system is not fit for purpose. Why do we have a system saving well off property owners so much money?
@Zeta Function - I think the problem is that 'council tax' is designed to reflect the cost of providing services to a household rather than actually to being a local taxation of wealth to support the community.

So if you do have a large expensive house, does is cost more to collect the rubbish or mow the verges? Should richer people pay more for the same services to support the lower paid and if so by how much?

However it is similar to other products and services - the price of electricity, gas and water is the same for everyone but proportionately more for those on lower incomes. The same applies to food and transport.
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: A squabble over saving £300,000? The highest council tax band Is H for properties over £320.000. For Band F; properties up to £160,000, CT is £2,220,33. Band H is £3,047,30. Those in the lower bans pay proportionately more than those in Band H, which covers all the many properties valued over £320,000 which is the price of a small house or 2 bedroom flat. Those in properties valued £1000,000 are also in Band H and over pay the same council tax. I viewed a property valued at £800,000. Horrible. A shoddy 3 bedroom flat whose value should be much lower. The housing situation is a scandal. The council tax system is not fit for purpose. Why do we have a system saving well off property owners so much money?[/p][/quote]@Zeta Function - I think the problem is that 'council tax' is designed to reflect the cost of providing services to a household rather than actually to being a local taxation of wealth to support the community. So if you do have a large expensive house, does is cost more to collect the rubbish or mow the verges? Should richer people pay more for the same services to support the lower paid and if so by how much? However it is similar to other products and services - the price of electricity, gas and water is the same for everyone but proportionately more for those on lower incomes. The same applies to food and transport. pachallis
  • Score: 4

8:35am Wed 11 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
The Voluntary sector is advertising on twitter, etc. already seeking volunteers to replace trained home helps and professionals - they are SO naive about what is expected and needed and lack of continuity, skills, CRB checks, allsorts is going to stress the elderly, learning and other disabled. There are serious aptiude and accountability issues in using them.

I feel very frightened for the elderly and disabled if the Tories get back in next year and Ken Norman carries on parroting off what officers and Tory central office tell him to think.
Come on Ken, the private sector doesn't work! Look at Southern Cross & Orchid View. Public sector staff are better trained, better paid & have the right Ethos. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys!
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: The Voluntary sector is advertising on twitter, etc. already seeking volunteers to replace trained home helps and professionals - they are SO naive about what is expected and needed and lack of continuity, skills, CRB checks, allsorts is going to stress the elderly, learning and other disabled. There are serious aptiude and accountability issues in using them. I feel very frightened for the elderly and disabled if the Tories get back in next year and Ken Norman carries on parroting off what officers and Tory central office tell him to think.[/p][/quote]Come on Ken, the private sector doesn't work! Look at Southern Cross & Orchid View. Public sector staff are better trained, better paid & have the right Ethos. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys! stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 3

8:52am Wed 11 Jun 14

pachallis says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Why do people keep on insisting that The Greens are a party of the left? They may well be in Germany but in the UK the Greens have shown themselves to be on the libertarian right. All Green policies in this local authority have placed the poor, needy or vulnerable at the bottom of a list of their priorities which have far more emphasis on single issue matters such as the environment. Nothing wrong with placing an importance on such issues but not at the expense of the low paid and those who depend on Council services.
Is that the same local Green Party that have sorted out the inequalities in council staff pay that was left festering by successive Tory and Labour administrations and that could have lumbered the city with legal costs of millions and millions of pounds - like Birmingham? ! Or maybe you are thinking about our local Green Party who campaigned on a Living Wage platform and implemented this on coming to power?!! The reality, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see, is that the Greens have been forced into having to make very difficult decisions due to savage Tory cuts to local authority funding - cuts that have been backed by the Labour Party!!
Dear Official Green Party Spokesperson,

But your council decided to address these inequalities and introduce Living Wage at a time when they knew they were going to get less from the government. They didn't have to do it - they wanted to!

How much have your actions increased the total council payroll costs over the past 3 years, and how had the amount of money for the services the ratepayers actually WANT to be provided with been reduced as a result? You know - basic services such as refuse collection; street cleaning; grass verge cutting?

How much have average council wages been increased over the past 3 years whilst many working in the public sector have had no increases?

Where did you expect to get the additional funding for your left-wing socialist schemes? From your student supporters that don't pay council tax? By bumping up council tax by 4.5% - higher than any other council no the country?

You really must learn to take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming everyone else when you scr*w up!
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Why do people keep on insisting that The Greens are a party of the left? They may well be in Germany but in the UK the Greens have shown themselves to be on the libertarian right. All Green policies in this local authority have placed the poor, needy or vulnerable at the bottom of a list of their priorities which have far more emphasis on single issue matters such as the environment. Nothing wrong with placing an importance on such issues but not at the expense of the low paid and those who depend on Council services.[/p][/quote]Is that the same local Green Party that have sorted out the inequalities in council staff pay that was left festering by successive Tory and Labour administrations and that could have lumbered the city with legal costs of millions and millions of pounds - like Birmingham? ! Or maybe you are thinking about our local Green Party who campaigned on a Living Wage platform and implemented this on coming to power?!! The reality, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see, is that the Greens have been forced into having to make very difficult decisions due to savage Tory cuts to local authority funding - cuts that have been backed by the Labour Party!![/p][/quote]Dear Official Green Party Spokesperson, But your council decided to address these inequalities and introduce Living Wage at a time when they knew they were going to get less from the government. They didn't have to do it - they wanted to! How much have your actions increased the total council payroll costs over the past 3 years, and how had the amount of money for the services the ratepayers actually WANT to be provided with been reduced as a result? You know - basic services such as refuse collection; street cleaning; grass verge cutting? How much have average council wages been increased over the past 3 years whilst many working in the public sector have had no increases? Where did you expect to get the additional funding for your left-wing socialist schemes? From your student supporters that don't pay council tax? By bumping up council tax by 4.5% - higher than any other council no the country? You really must learn to take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming everyone else when you scr*w up! pachallis
  • Score: 5

9:02am Wed 11 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

Roundbill wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Greens sought a referendum this year to raise council tax by 4.75% to compensate for the savage cuts to our funding from central government, but seeing as that wasn't supported the need to make cost savings in this area (one way or another) remains. Labour and Tories voted for a cuts budget.

That said, it is possible for a service review to bring positive benefits to service users as well. One win-win proposal we made in the budget was to reduce expensive out-of-city placements, which would bring adults placed in care outside the city back into Brighton and Hove, closer to their loved ones.

The committee paper which Jason has had withdrawn mentions use of private sector providers as being one option on which to consult service users but that wasn't really the Greens' intention, in the budget it just says

"We will consider alternative models of care to include supported living. We will continue to explore models for providing care, looking for opportunities that provide better outcomes and a more efficient service, both within the council and through other providers.”

The council already uses third sector not-for-profit providers for elements of the service so it seems reasonable to look at whether it would make sense to go further in this direction as part of the review. The fact is with less money in the budget something has got to give. Expect to see the review back on the agenda at a future meeting once further discussions have taken place, it should be possible for everyone to come to a common understanding on the best way forwards.
Jason, is it really appropriate for you to be commenting on here? Surely you should be using official channels?
Want to save £300000? Reduce Directors & or their pay!
[quote][p][bold]Roundbill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Greens sought a referendum this year to raise council tax by 4.75% to compensate for the savage cuts to our funding from central government, but seeing as that wasn't supported the need to make cost savings in this area (one way or another) remains. Labour and Tories voted for a cuts budget. That said, it is possible for a service review to bring positive benefits to service users as well. One win-win proposal we made in the budget was to reduce expensive out-of-city placements, which would bring adults placed in care outside the city back into Brighton and Hove, closer to their loved ones. The committee paper which Jason has had withdrawn mentions use of private sector providers as being one option on which to consult service users but that wasn't really the Greens' intention, in the budget it just says "We will consider alternative models of care to include supported living. We will continue to explore models for providing care, looking for opportunities that provide better outcomes and a more efficient service, both within the council and through other providers.” The council already uses third sector not-for-profit providers for elements of the service so it seems reasonable to look at whether it would make sense to go further in this direction as part of the review. The fact is with less money in the budget something has got to give. Expect to see the review back on the agenda at a future meeting once further discussions have taken place, it should be possible for everyone to come to a common understanding on the best way forwards.[/p][/quote]Jason, is it really appropriate for you to be commenting on here? Surely you should be using official channels?[/p][/quote]Want to save £300000? Reduce Directors & or their pay! stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 5

9:39am Wed 11 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

stumpyshimmans wrote:
Roundbill wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Greens sought a referendum this year to raise council tax by 4.75% to compensate for the savage cuts to our funding from central government, but seeing as that wasn't supported the need to make cost savings in this area (one way or another) remains. Labour and Tories voted for a cuts budget.

That said, it is possible for a service review to bring positive benefits to service users as well. One win-win proposal we made in the budget was to reduce expensive out-of-city placements, which would bring adults placed in care outside the city back into Brighton and Hove, closer to their loved ones.

The committee paper which Jason has had withdrawn mentions use of private sector providers as being one option on which to consult service users but that wasn't really the Greens' intention, in the budget it just says

"We will consider alternative models of care to include supported living. We will continue to explore models for providing care, looking for opportunities that provide better outcomes and a more efficient service, both within the council and through other providers.”

The council already uses third sector not-for-profit providers for elements of the service so it seems reasonable to look at whether it would make sense to go further in this direction as part of the review. The fact is with less money in the budget something has got to give. Expect to see the review back on the agenda at a future meeting once further discussions have taken place, it should be possible for everyone to come to a common understanding on the best way forwards.
Jason, is it really appropriate for you to be commenting on here? Surely you should be using official channels?
Want to save £300000? Reduce Directors & or their pay!
Already done that. Axed 3 new strategic directors brought in under the previous administration, each on £125k salaries, not to mention the inefficient dual commissioning/delive
ry structures that were put in place to facilitate outsourcing but which were just a huge waste of time and money.
Our new Chief Executive Penny accepted a 7% salary reduction compared to her predecessor, not just to save money but to help us reduce the differential between highest and lowest paid staff.
[quote][p][bold]stumpyshimmans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Roundbill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Greens sought a referendum this year to raise council tax by 4.75% to compensate for the savage cuts to our funding from central government, but seeing as that wasn't supported the need to make cost savings in this area (one way or another) remains. Labour and Tories voted for a cuts budget. That said, it is possible for a service review to bring positive benefits to service users as well. One win-win proposal we made in the budget was to reduce expensive out-of-city placements, which would bring adults placed in care outside the city back into Brighton and Hove, closer to their loved ones. The committee paper which Jason has had withdrawn mentions use of private sector providers as being one option on which to consult service users but that wasn't really the Greens' intention, in the budget it just says "We will consider alternative models of care to include supported living. We will continue to explore models for providing care, looking for opportunities that provide better outcomes and a more efficient service, both within the council and through other providers.” The council already uses third sector not-for-profit providers for elements of the service so it seems reasonable to look at whether it would make sense to go further in this direction as part of the review. The fact is with less money in the budget something has got to give. Expect to see the review back on the agenda at a future meeting once further discussions have taken place, it should be possible for everyone to come to a common understanding on the best way forwards.[/p][/quote]Jason, is it really appropriate for you to be commenting on here? Surely you should be using official channels?[/p][/quote]Want to save £300000? Reduce Directors & or their pay![/p][/quote]Already done that. Axed 3 new strategic directors brought in under the previous administration, each on £125k salaries, not to mention the inefficient dual commissioning/delive ry structures that were put in place to facilitate outsourcing but which were just a huge waste of time and money. Our new Chief Executive Penny accepted a 7% salary reduction compared to her predecessor, not just to save money but to help us reduce the differential between highest and lowest paid staff. Eugenius
  • Score: 1

9:48am Wed 11 Jun 14

Andy R says...

fredaj wrote:
Andy R wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......
Surely, tax payer funded services should be run the right way (whatever that might mean), not the way to prevent unions from blackmailing the council and the local community.
"Blackmailing"? What are you even talking about? Do you reckon we've got explicit polaroids of all the councillors or something? I should come in out of the sun if I were you.

That this piece of asset stripping has been binned (if only for the time being) is brilliant. That it's got the Tories and their assorted wingnut supporters on here in a lather is just the icing on the cake.
I am reasonably certain that you are not stupid so why are you pretending that you are?
That's just a meaningless statement not really worthy of any further comment from me. Like I said...."icing on the cake...."
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: Indeed Ken Norman. Come after public services with your privatising mates and there will indeed be "merry hell" each and every time. Let's see who blinks first......[/p][/quote]Surely, tax payer funded services should be run the right way (whatever that might mean), not the way to prevent unions from blackmailing the council and the local community.[/p][/quote]"Blackmailing"? What are you even talking about? Do you reckon we've got explicit polaroids of all the councillors or something? I should come in out of the sun if I were you. That this piece of asset stripping has been binned (if only for the time being) is brilliant. That it's got the Tories and their assorted wingnut supporters on here in a lather is just the icing on the cake.[/p][/quote]I am reasonably certain that you are not stupid so why are you pretending that you are?[/p][/quote]That's just a meaningless statement not really worthy of any further comment from me. Like I said...."icing on the cake...." Andy R
  • Score: -3

10:04am Wed 11 Jun 14

pachallis says...

Eugenius wrote:
stumpyshimmans wrote:
Roundbill wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Greens sought a referendum this year to raise council tax by 4.75% to compensate for the savage cuts to our funding from central government, but seeing as that wasn't supported the need to make cost savings in this area (one way or another) remains. Labour and Tories voted for a cuts budget.

That said, it is possible for a service review to bring positive benefits to service users as well. One win-win proposal we made in the budget was to reduce expensive out-of-city placements, which would bring adults placed in care outside the city back into Brighton and Hove, closer to their loved ones.

The committee paper which Jason has had withdrawn mentions use of private sector providers as being one option on which to consult service users but that wasn't really the Greens' intention, in the budget it just says

"We will consider alternative models of care to include supported living. We will continue to explore models for providing care, looking for opportunities that provide better outcomes and a more efficient service, both within the council and through other providers.”

The council already uses third sector not-for-profit providers for elements of the service so it seems reasonable to look at whether it would make sense to go further in this direction as part of the review. The fact is with less money in the budget something has got to give. Expect to see the review back on the agenda at a future meeting once further discussions have taken place, it should be possible for everyone to come to a common understanding on the best way forwards.
Jason, is it really appropriate for you to be commenting on here? Surely you should be using official channels?
Want to save £300000? Reduce Directors & or their pay!
Already done that. Axed 3 new strategic directors brought in under the previous administration, each on £125k salaries, not to mention the inefficient dual commissioning/delive

ry structures that were put in place to facilitate outsourcing but which were just a huge waste of time and money.
Our new Chief Executive Penny accepted a 7% salary reduction compared to her predecessor, not just to save money but to help us reduce the differential between highest and lowest paid staff.
Dear Official Green Party Spokesperson,

I accept that one highly paid ineffective chief executive may be getting 7% less salary then her predecessor, but what it the difference in her total compensation package including bonuses?

And how much have average council wages been increased over the past 3 years whilst many working in the public sector have had no increases?

So you have reduce the differential between highest and lowest paid staff - well done! Who cares apart from the staff? I don't think you'll find most council tax payers, businesses or visitors are worried - we care about you providing the basic services we pay for and that you have been diverting to your various vanity projects.

It's just more unnecessary expenditure following left-wing socialist principles at a time when the council can not afford it resulting in a drop in services to residents and businesses.

What a useless irresponsible ideological political party!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stumpyshimmans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Roundbill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Greens sought a referendum this year to raise council tax by 4.75% to compensate for the savage cuts to our funding from central government, but seeing as that wasn't supported the need to make cost savings in this area (one way or another) remains. Labour and Tories voted for a cuts budget. That said, it is possible for a service review to bring positive benefits to service users as well. One win-win proposal we made in the budget was to reduce expensive out-of-city placements, which would bring adults placed in care outside the city back into Brighton and Hove, closer to their loved ones. The committee paper which Jason has had withdrawn mentions use of private sector providers as being one option on which to consult service users but that wasn't really the Greens' intention, in the budget it just says "We will consider alternative models of care to include supported living. We will continue to explore models for providing care, looking for opportunities that provide better outcomes and a more efficient service, both within the council and through other providers.” The council already uses third sector not-for-profit providers for elements of the service so it seems reasonable to look at whether it would make sense to go further in this direction as part of the review. The fact is with less money in the budget something has got to give. Expect to see the review back on the agenda at a future meeting once further discussions have taken place, it should be possible for everyone to come to a common understanding on the best way forwards.[/p][/quote]Jason, is it really appropriate for you to be commenting on here? Surely you should be using official channels?[/p][/quote]Want to save £300000? Reduce Directors & or their pay![/p][/quote]Already done that. Axed 3 new strategic directors brought in under the previous administration, each on £125k salaries, not to mention the inefficient dual commissioning/delive ry structures that were put in place to facilitate outsourcing but which were just a huge waste of time and money. Our new Chief Executive Penny accepted a 7% salary reduction compared to her predecessor, not just to save money but to help us reduce the differential between highest and lowest paid staff.[/p][/quote]Dear Official Green Party Spokesperson, I accept that one highly paid ineffective chief executive may be getting 7% less salary then her predecessor, but what it the difference in her total compensation package including bonuses? And how much have average council wages been increased over the past 3 years whilst many working in the public sector have had no increases? So you have reduce the differential between highest and lowest paid staff - well done! Who cares apart from the staff? I don't think you'll find most council tax payers, businesses or visitors are worried - we care about you providing the basic services we pay for and that you have been diverting to your various vanity projects. It's just more unnecessary expenditure following left-wing socialist principles at a time when the council can not afford it resulting in a drop in services to residents and businesses. What a useless irresponsible ideological political party! pachallis
  • Score: 3

11:03am Wed 11 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

@pachallis

No bonuses are paid to council staff, and that includes the chief executive.

Average council staff wage increase over the past five years (as decreed by the National Joint Council not local arrangements) is an enormous 0.4%.

Pay was frozen in 2010, 2011 and 2012, with a 1% increase in 2013 and that's the NJC offer for 2014 as well.

With inflation running at between 5.25% and 2.5% over the period that's a substantial pay cut in real terms for council staff every year for the last five years.

School staff and council staff continue to be the lowest paid public sector workers.
@pachallis No bonuses are paid to council staff, and that includes the chief executive. Average council staff wage increase over the past five years (as decreed by the National Joint Council not local arrangements) is an enormous 0.4%. Pay was frozen in 2010, 2011 and 2012, with a 1% increase in 2013 and that's the NJC offer for 2014 as well. With inflation running at between 5.25% and 2.5% over the period that's a substantial pay cut in real terms for council staff every year for the last five years. School staff and council staff continue to be the lowest paid public sector workers. Eugenius
  • Score: 3

11:57am Wed 11 Jun 14

pachallis says...

Eugenius wrote:
@pachallis

No bonuses are paid to council staff, and that includes the chief executive.

Average council staff wage increase over the past five years (as decreed by the National Joint Council not local arrangements) is an enormous 0.4%.

Pay was frozen in 2010, 2011 and 2012, with a 1% increase in 2013 and that's the NJC offer for 2014 as well.

With inflation running at between 5.25% and 2.5% over the period that's a substantial pay cut in real terms for council staff every year for the last five years.

School staff and council staff continue to be the lowest paid public sector workers.
@Eugenius - thanks for that - so how come you implemented Living Wage increases for the lower paid and the wage realignment?

What happened to the total payroll bill and total number of staff over the 3 years? Do you have the numbers?

I can't see how you can increase wages and keep the average the same - please explain.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: @pachallis No bonuses are paid to council staff, and that includes the chief executive. Average council staff wage increase over the past five years (as decreed by the National Joint Council not local arrangements) is an enormous 0.4%. Pay was frozen in 2010, 2011 and 2012, with a 1% increase in 2013 and that's the NJC offer for 2014 as well. With inflation running at between 5.25% and 2.5% over the period that's a substantial pay cut in real terms for council staff every year for the last five years. School staff and council staff continue to be the lowest paid public sector workers.[/p][/quote]@Eugenius - thanks for that - so how come you implemented Living Wage increases for the lower paid and the wage realignment? What happened to the total payroll bill and total number of staff over the 3 years? Do you have the numbers? I can't see how you can increase wages and keep the average the same - please explain. pachallis
  • Score: 1

12:10pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

I don't have numbers to hand so maybe would like to submit an FOI request. Living Wage was implemented by scrapping the lowest pay grade and raising those workers up to the grade above. It wasn't an across the board pay rise.
I don't have numbers to hand so maybe would like to submit an FOI request. Living Wage was implemented by scrapping the lowest pay grade and raising those workers up to the grade above. It wasn't an across the board pay rise. Eugenius
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Sun 15 Jun 14

ARMANA says...

pachallis wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Bill in Hanover wrote:
The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.
What a ridiculous comment - travellers were coming to Brighton before the Green (minority) administration gained power and they will still be coming here if the Greens get voted out!!
Dear official Green Party spokesperson,

Remember that your party introduced the 'travellers policy' that highlights the special needs of travellers and requires council and police perform assessments before it is decided whether or not they should be moved on, and this has resulted in Brighton and Hove being a magnet for travellers?

So yes, they were coming before the greens, but more are coming now - please learn to accept responsibility for your actions!
Well said pachallis, B b.nose, = Gattling Gob, !!
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous comment - travellers were coming to Brighton before the Green (minority) administration gained power and they will still be coming here if the Greens get voted out!![/p][/quote]Dear official Green Party spokesperson, Remember that your party introduced the 'travellers policy' that highlights the special needs of travellers and requires council and police perform assessments before it is decided whether or not they should be moved on, and this has resulted in Brighton and Hove being a magnet for travellers? So yes, they were coming before the greens, but more are coming now - please learn to accept responsibility for your actions![/p][/quote]Well said pachallis, B b.nose, = Gattling Gob, !! ARMANA
  • Score: 0

5:29am Mon 16 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

ARMANA wrote:
pachallis wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Bill in Hanover wrote:
The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.
What a ridiculous comment - travellers were coming to Brighton before the Green (minority) administration gained power and they will still be coming here if the Greens get voted out!!
Dear official Green Party spokesperson,

Remember that your party introduced the 'travellers policy' that highlights the special needs of travellers and requires council and police perform assessments before it is decided whether or not they should be moved on, and this has resulted in Brighton and Hove being a magnet for travellers?

So yes, they were coming before the greens, but more are coming now - please learn to accept responsibility for your actions!
Well said pachallis, B b.nose, = Gattling Gob, !!
Email this lady for support in removing this problem..... I DID! She replied!

dawn.barnett@brighto
n-hove.gcsx.gov.uk
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous comment - travellers were coming to Brighton before the Green (minority) administration gained power and they will still be coming here if the Greens get voted out!![/p][/quote]Dear official Green Party spokesperson, Remember that your party introduced the 'travellers policy' that highlights the special needs of travellers and requires council and police perform assessments before it is decided whether or not they should be moved on, and this has resulted in Brighton and Hove being a magnet for travellers? So yes, they were coming before the greens, but more are coming now - please learn to accept responsibility for your actions![/p][/quote]Well said pachallis, B b.nose, = Gattling Gob, !![/p][/quote]Email this lady for support in removing this problem..... I DID! She replied! dawn.barnett@brighto n-hove.gcsx.gov.uk stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 0

5:35am Mon 16 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

pachallis wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Bill in Hanover wrote:
The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.
What a ridiculous comment - travellers were coming to Brighton before the Green (minority) administration gained power and they will still be coming here if the Greens get voted out!!
Dear official Green Party spokesperson,

Remember that your party introduced the 'travellers policy' that highlights the special needs of travellers and requires council and police perform assessments before it is decided whether or not they should be moved on, and this has resulted in Brighton and Hove being a magnet for travellers?

So yes, they were coming before the greens, but more are coming now - please learn to accept responsibility for your actions!
Email this lady for support in removing this problem..... I DID! She replied!

dawn.barnett@brighto
n-hove.gcsx.gov.uk
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous comment - travellers were coming to Brighton before the Green (minority) administration gained power and they will still be coming here if the Greens get voted out!![/p][/quote]Dear official Green Party spokesperson, Remember that your party introduced the 'travellers policy' that highlights the special needs of travellers and requires council and police perform assessments before it is decided whether or not they should be moved on, and this has resulted in Brighton and Hove being a magnet for travellers? So yes, they were coming before the greens, but more are coming now - please learn to accept responsibility for your actions![/p][/quote]Email this lady for support in removing this problem..... I DID! She replied! dawn.barnett@brighto n-hove.gcsx.gov.uk stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 0

5:39am Mon 16 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.
Email this lady for support in removing this problem..... I DID! She replied!

dawn.barnett@brighto
n-hove.gcsx.gov.uk
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: The Greens need to save money as they have already overspent on the 'traveller' budget by £200,000 and with the current crop wrecking the earthen mounds (which were fairly ineffective) to get into Wild Park no doubt the bill will be even higher.[/p][/quote]Email this lady for support in removing this problem..... I DID! She replied! dawn.barnett@brighto n-hove.gcsx.gov.uk stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree