Labour and Tories in pact to defeat Green tax hike bid (From The Argus)

So the Greens want to fix the budget by raising the tax, and the opposition by firing even more people. We are condemned no matter who wins, aren't we?

Short sighted idiots! Labour and the Conservatives have no interest in doing what is best for the city, this is just a short- termist trick to increase their chances at the next election.

Numerous local authorities around the country, including 11 run by Tories, have rejected the bribe to freeze Council Tax because it is not a grant, but a loan that will have to be repaid. Blocking a rise (that no one wants, but no wanted the financial crisis either) will result in higher bills in the future and greater cuts now. Unless of course bribes are offered ad infinitum, which would be a despicable attempt by national political parties to manipulate local voters in order to boost their own position come general election time.

This is gameship politiking idiocy.

The Blues and Reds should stop being so predictable. The town voted them out both as local politicians and at Westminster. let the Green lot breathe let them make their initatives and lets see them do their thing, if people are unhappy we have the next election to say so. We were obviously fed up with Bassams team and the greengrocer lot. Go greens give it a whirl.

This makes me mad. The budget appears to be a political game to Labour and the Conservatives, and Labour appear to have lost their way.

Tactics like these certainly won't encourage me to vote for either Labour or the Conservatives. Considering the time the Greens have spent consulting on the budget, tabling counter-proposals 48 hours prior to the vote is a joke.

I am sure when it comes to the elections we can all be reminded that Labour and the Conservatives voted together if they actually go through with it.

Tories=self-righteou
s, self-serving
(New) Labour=erm....

At least the Greens - like 'em or not - have some ideological background, some notion of principles and sense of purpose, some connection with people.

What do the Tories/New Labour stand for?

Rant over. Time to go home. But I can't get up Ditchling Road!

The only positive remark one can make is that even those naive elements who fondly imagine there is a 'difference' of some kind between Tory and Labour --- Cameron, (Clegg) and Milliband --- must surely see they hallucinate. That ANY local councillor could comfortably consider voting in alliance with Theobold reflects the sorry state of our local politics ....

There has been no deal, no pact and no collusion between Labour and the Tories - fact. Labour worked on joint amendments with the Greens last year, this year we have not worked with anyone but have come up with proposals we think are best now and for the future of the city.
I'm not prepared to add even more pressure on people in my ward struggling with bills and whose jobs are at risk just to pay for the Greens plans to promote organic farming and create an urban biosphere whilst failing to follow through on their promises to cut back on management costs.
The Greens as the Administration could publish their budget proposals at any point, but opposition parties have to get their amendments signed off as financially viable by officers, and they won't do that until the deadline for amendments has passed - that's why they are only published 48 hrs in advance. It is a shame that opposition amendments have not been published on the council website so that people can see what Labour are proposing - including a reversal of the Greens proposals to cut the mobile library service and increase allotment fees by 67%.

I wonder how many of those who have put comments here are on pensions or are OAPs and in fact how many of them are actually paying council tax. The need to control the officers spending plans, lets not kid ourselves this is the greens budget plans as they are being led by the nose by the chief officers, is essential if members are to regain control and take it out of the hands of the Chief Exec.

sorry should read... this is NOT the greens budget plans

Warren Morgan wrote:
There has been no deal, no pact and no collusion between Labour and the Tories - fact. Labour worked on joint amendments with the Greens last year, this year we have not worked with anyone but have come up with proposals we think are best now and for the future of the city. I'm not prepared to add even more pressure on people in my ward struggling with bills and whose jobs are at risk just to pay for the Greens plans to promote organic farming and create an urban biosphere whilst failing to follow through on their promises to cut back on management costs. The Greens as the Administration could publish their budget proposals at any point, but opposition parties have to get their amendments signed off as financially viable by officers, and they won't do that until the deadline for amendments has passed - that's why they are only published 48 hrs in advance. It is a shame that opposition amendments have not been published on the council website so that people can see what Labour are proposing - including a reversal of the Greens proposals to cut the mobile library service and increase allotment fees by 67%.

So by freezing council tax you will be saving jobs and services in the long run? Really? The £3,000,000 extra cuts this will mean in 2013/2014 wont result in any cuts in jobs and services?
Really? And simply make for higher council tax later? Any comment on why a number of labour and tory councils around the country have turned down this con? Could it be that it is only in Brighton & Hove the Greens, unexpectedly, got more seats, than Labour, which is what you are really angry about and thus, in reality colluding with the Tories?

When I read the Argus budget feature this morning I thought there had been a misprint - the first six Conservative and Labour amendments are identical. Implausible that these were not cooked up together. Both would fund the tax freeze through massive redundancies. In some cases Labour go further than Tories, e.g. £200,000 cut to the housing budget. Unbelievable.

The Greens are very quickly ruining this town.

It shows why the Greens only have one seat in the whole of the country,their naive decisions will not only lose them Brighton but ensure they wont get in anywhere else.

Is this just plain short-sightedness, or are they conspiring to get the Greens out?

steampunk wrote:
When I read the Argus budget feature this morning I thought there had been a misprint - the first six Conservative and Labour amendments are identical. Implausible that these were not cooked up together. Both would fund the tax freeze through massive redundancies. In some cases Labour go further than Tories, e.g. £200,000 cut to the housing budget. Unbelievable.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again Steampunk - poor even from a Green supporter like yorself.
No they are not identical - Tory amendments remove subsidy for those on low incomes who are having to pay c/tax for the first time, take away subsidy for Brightstart and trades union posts, stop the sale of the Mayor's number plate etc.
There is very little room for finding the funding to make changes so it was inevitable that sources of funding for amendments would be similar. Our amendments do not lead to "massive redundancies".
Labour isn't taking £200k out of the "housing budget", it is using a similar amount again of the govt's "New Homes Bonus" to replace lost money in the General Revenue Account as the Greens were already proposing to do.

Warren Morgan wrote:

steampunk wrote:
When I read the Argus budget feature this morning I thought there had been a misprint - the first six Conservative and Labour amendments are identical. Implausible that these were not cooked up together. Both would fund the tax freeze through massive redundancies. In some cases Labour go further than Tories, e.g. £200,000 cut to the housing budget. Unbelievable.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again Steampunk - poor even from a Green supporter like yorself.
No they are not identical - Tory amendments remove subsidy for those on low incomes who are having to pay c/tax for the first time, take away subsidy for Brightstart and trades union posts, stop the sale of the Mayor's number plate etc.
There is very little room for finding the funding to make changes so it was inevitable that sources of funding for amendments would be similar. Our amendments do not lead to "massive redundancies".
Labour isn't taking £200k out of the "housing budget", it is using a similar amount again of the govt's "New Homes Bonus" to replace lost money in the General Revenue Account as the Greens were already proposing to do.

It looks like a duck

quacks like a duck

waddles like a duck

I think it might be a duck Mr Morgan.

Warren: Labour amendments are still designed to destroy the green budget and set the city agenda back to Conservative policies before the election, which is why Theobald says Conservatives are happy.

P.G wrote:
This is gameship politiking idiocy.

The Blues and Reds should stop being so predictable. The town voted them out both as local politicians and at Westminster. let the Green lot breathe let them make their initatives and lets see them do their thing, if people are unhappy we have the next election to say so. We were obviously fed up with Bassams team and the greengrocer lot. Go greens give it a whirl.

The fact is most Brighton & Hove residents did NOT vote green at the last elections so the greens have no mandate to raise our taxes whilst we are all struggling with the current financial troubles

Modest council tax rise of £3 a month for the average household has been designed to be affordable in tough times. Alternative is extreme cuts which would increase unemployment and wreck long-term plans to improve the city. Under first-post-the-post Greens do have a mandate, and no Labour voters were expecting their party to get into bed with the Tories!

The really interesting thing about the Labour Party is not so much the suggestion of collusion with the Tories on the drafting of the amendments - it's the way that Labour's rhetoric and politics in Brighton has developed in a way that aligns them so closely with the Tory position on how local government is financed - indeed on what local government is for.

Labour's rhetoric has been about the need to freeze Council Tax - which is of course the same as that of Eric Pickles. It's a curious position for Labour as Council Tax is, at both the top and bottom end of the bands, in principle a deeply regressive tax. For those on low incomes, the loss of services inherent in freezing council tax has a far greater effect - while those at in the top tax bands get a much bigger saving than they lose through cuts in services. In other words, Labour still claims to speak for the poor and vulnerable but in general is advocating policies that have precisely the opposite effect. And it appears to have bought into precisely the sort of low-tax rhetoric that Pickles uses to justify his assault on local authority power. One would like to think that Labour would know better - but recent history suggests otherwise (students of urban development will realise that Labour's urban legacy in Government will be the erosion of local democracy, the privatisation of public space, the gated estate, the private mall and the CCTV camera - in the essentials of urban policy, as in so much else, Labour and Tory are increasingly indistinguishable).

So why the inconsistencies? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Labour in Brighton is still fighting the 2010 General Election, and still smarting at the fact that, having taken for granted that it would get the progressive vote in this city, it lost to a candidate who outflanked it on the left and continues to provide real opposition to the coalition in a way that the national Labour leadership just doesn't appear to have the stomach for.

In other words, this is not about the good of the city, or opposing the vicious cuts imposed from Whitehall - Labour is indulging in the politics of emotional spasm, still smarting over its defeat and throwing a toddler hissy fit that must be giving Brighton's Tories quite a lot of quiet satisfaction. It looks very much like a group that has lost the will to argue for change and is content with throwing its toys around instead. Is this what the Labour group entered politics for?

Labour has the chance to support a budget that, following public consultation, seeks to protect services in a hugely hostile climate, at the expense of a modest rise in Council Tax - 50p per week for the average family. It's a test, really, of Labour's seriousness of purpose and whether it's still prepared to stick up for the poorest people in society.

oh well never mind we have some lovely cycle lanes "roffle"

This is democracy in action, good. I'd champion the good sense of Warren Morgan over the green administration any day.

Serenus Zeitblom wrote:
The really interesting thing about the Labour Party is not so much the suggestion of collusion with the Tories on the drafting of the amendments - it's the way that Labour's rhetoric and politics in Brighton has developed in a way that aligns them so closely with the Tory position on how local government is financed - indeed on what local government is for. Labour's rhetoric has been about the need to freeze Council Tax - which is of course the same as that of Eric Pickles. It's a curious position for Labour as Council Tax is, at both the top and bottom end of the bands, in principle a deeply regressive tax. For those on low incomes, the loss of services inherent in freezing council tax has a far greater effect - while those at in the top tax bands get a much bigger saving than they lose through cuts in services. In other words, Labour still claims to speak for the poor and vulnerable but in general is advocating policies that have precisely the opposite effect. And it appears to have bought into precisely the sort of low-tax rhetoric that Pickles uses to justify his assault on local authority power. One would like to think that Labour would know better - but recent history suggests otherwise (students of urban development will realise that Labour's urban legacy in Government will be the erosion of local democracy, the privatisation of public space, the gated estate, the private mall and the CCTV camera - in the essentials of urban policy, as in so much else, Labour and Tory are increasingly indistinguishable). So why the inconsistencies? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Labour in Brighton is still fighting the 2010 General Election, and still smarting at the fact that, having taken for granted that it would get the progressive vote in this city, it lost to a candidate who outflanked it on the left and continues to provide real opposition to the coalition in a way that the national Labour leadership just doesn't appear to have the stomach for. In other words, this is not about the good of the city, or opposing the vicious cuts imposed from Whitehall - Labour is indulging in the politics of emotional spasm, still smarting over its defeat and throwing a toddler hissy fit that must be giving Brighton's Tories quite a lot of quiet satisfaction. It looks very much like a group that has lost the will to argue for change and is content with throwing its toys around instead. Is this what the Labour group entered politics for? Labour has the chance to support a budget that, following public consultation, seeks to protect services in a hugely hostile climate, at the expense of a modest rise in Council Tax - 50p per week for the average family. It's a test, really, of Labour's seriousness of purpose and whether it's still prepared to stick up for the poorest people in society.

Crikey! What a shock! Coming onto Argus Comments and finding something as cogent and well argued as this. Must be because it's a leap year.....

I have pretty much voted Labour all my life, to be honest the more I see of what is happening locally I feel can no longer do so.

According to the Argus, and reports I have heard from other sources Labour intends to propose an alternative budget, which they hope to vote through with Tory support. These would be members of the same Tory party in coalition with the Lib dems, who are currently decimating the economic life support of many of the most vulnerable in our society, dismantling our public provisions and systems, resulting in social engineering (as more and more families are forced by housing benefit changes to leave their homes) and whose policies are resulting in growing numbers of food banks to feed the newly impoverished. Basically the most right-wing Tory part- administration in history. It would be that Tory party with whom (however briefly and tactically) Brighton and Hove you are aligning yourselves with.

This is astounding enough but some of Labour’s budget proposals are real economic sleights of hand and will in the long run end up costing Brighton and Hove much, much more as the Labour party is very well aware. The cynicism of this move defies belief – and to be honest I am not the only one of Labour’s formerly core support being alienating for life in the process. Abundantly clear is the fact that if the Labour party continues with this strategy their very least priority is the people of Brighton and Hove. The Labour budget if accepted will merely end up compounding the misery already being inflicted by their Tory “colleagues” locally and nationally.

I and many, many others sincerely hope that Labour councillors and members will be

Serenus Zeitblom wrote:
The really interesting thing about the Labour Party is not so much the suggestion of collusion with the Tories on the drafting of the amendments - it's the way that Labour's rhetoric and politics in Brighton has developed in a way that aligns them so closely with the Tory position on how local government is financed - indeed on what local government is for.

Labour's rhetoric has been about the need to freeze Council Tax - which is of course the same as that of Eric Pickles. It's a curious position for Labour as Council Tax is, at both the top and bottom end of the bands, in principle a deeply regressive tax. For those on low incomes, the loss of services inherent in freezing council tax has a far greater effect - while those at in the top tax bands get a much bigger saving than they lose through cuts in services. In other words, Labour still claims to speak for the poor and vulnerable but in general is advocating policies that have precisely the opposite effect. And it appears to have bought into precisely the sort of low-tax rhetoric that Pickles uses to justify his assault on local authority power. One would like to think that Labour would know better - but recent history suggests otherwise (students of urban development will realise that Labour's urban legacy in Government will be the erosion of local democracy, the privatisation of public space, the gated estate, the private mall and the CCTV camera - in the essentials of urban policy, as in so much else, Labour and Tory are increasingly indistinguishable).

So why the inconsistencies? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Labour in Brighton is still fighting the 2010 General Election, and still smarting at the fact that, having taken for granted that it would get the progressive vote in this city, it lost to a candidate who outflanked it on the left and continues to provide real opposition to the coalition in a way that the national Labour leadership just doesn't appear to have the stomach for.

In other words, this is not about the good of the city, or opposing the vicious cuts imposed from Whitehall - Labour is indulging in the politics of emotional spasm, still smarting over its defeat and throwing a toddler hissy fit that must be giving Brighton's Tories quite a lot of quiet satisfaction. It looks very much like a group that has lost the will to argue for change and is content with throwing its toys around instead. Is this what the Labour group entered politics for?

Labour has the chance to support a budget that, following public consultation, seeks to protect services in a hugely hostile climate, at the expense of a modest rise in Council Tax - 50p per week for the average family. It's a test, really, of Labour's seriousness of purpose and whether it's still prepared to stick up for the poorest people in society.

Here here from a Labour supporter who has never voted Green. Warren you ain't fooling anyone! And your views on the other labour councils not taking the freeze con please?

The only sensible comment here is from Warren Morgan. There's hope yet.

Rearrangethedeckchai
rs wrote:

Serenus Zeitblom wrote: The really interesting thing about the Labour Party is not so much the suggestion of collusion with the Tories on the drafting of the amendments - it's the way that Labour's rhetoric and politics in Brighton has developed in a way that aligns them so closely with the Tory position on how local government is financed - indeed on what local government is for. Labour's rhetoric has been about the need to freeze Council Tax - which is of course the same as that of Eric Pickles. It's a curious position for Labour as Council Tax is, at both the top and bottom end of the bands, in principle a deeply regressive tax. For those on low incomes, the loss of services inherent in freezing council tax has a far greater effect - while those at in the top tax bands get a much bigger saving than they lose through cuts in services. In other words, Labour still claims to speak for the poor and vulnerable but in general is advocating policies that have precisely the opposite effect. And it appears to have bought into precisely the sort of low-tax rhetoric that Pickles uses to justify his assault on local authority power. One would like to think that Labour would know better - but recent history suggests otherwise (students of urban development will realise that Labour's urban legacy in Government will be the erosion of local democracy, the privatisation of public space, the gated estate, the private mall and the CCTV camera - in the essentials of urban policy, as in so much else, Labour and Tory are increasingly indistinguishable). So why the inconsistencies? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Labour in Brighton is still fighting the 2010 General Election, and still smarting at the fact that, having taken for granted that it would get the progressive vote in this city, it lost to a candidate who outflanked it on the left and continues to provide real opposition to the coalition in a way that the national Labour leadership just doesn't appear to have the stomach for. In other words, this is not about the good of the city, or opposing the vicious cuts imposed from Whitehall - Labour is indulging in the politics of emotional spasm, still smarting over its defeat and throwing a toddler hissy fit that must be giving Brighton's Tories quite a lot of quiet satisfaction. It looks very much like a group that has lost the will to argue for change and is content with throwing its toys around instead. Is this what the Labour group entered politics for? Labour has the chance to support a budget that, following public consultation, seeks to protect services in a hugely hostile climate, at the expense of a modest rise in Council Tax - 50p per week for the average family. It's a test, really, of Labour's seriousness of purpose and whether it's still prepared to stick up for the poorest people in society.

Here here from a Labour supporter who has never voted Green. Warren you ain't fooling anyone! And your views on the other labour councils not taking the freeze con please?

I couldn't agree more- fantastic analytical piece. But alas I am still a tad confused about 'party politics'.
- we can by and large all agree on services to retain
- we can all agree to a definition of groups of disadvantaged we ought to support.

None of the above is party politics, so why the hell can't the parties simply do the best for us than all of this rhetorical nonsense?
(yes the irony of me pointing out party political rhetoric by using what is ultimately a rhetorical statement!)

steampunk wrote:
Modest council tax rise of £3 a month for the average household has been designed to be affordable in tough times. Alternative is extreme cuts which would increase unemployment and wreck long-term plans to improve the city. Under first-post-the-post Greens do have a mandate, and no Labour voters were expecting their party to get into bed with the Tories!

YeH I love all the rabid Green haters logic and fairness. If Labour or Tories rule due first past the post fine. If its the evil incarnate Greens it' s undemocratic!

graham_Seagull wrote:

Rearrangethedeckchai

rs wrote:

Serenus Zeitblom wrote: The really interesting thing about the Labour Party is not so much the suggestion of collusion with the Tories on the drafting of the amendments - it's the way that Labour's rhetoric and politics in Brighton has developed in a way that aligns them so closely with the Tory position on how local government is financed - indeed on what local government is for. Labour's rhetoric has been about the need to freeze Council Tax - which is of course the same as that of Eric Pickles. It's a curious position for Labour as Council Tax is, at both the top and bottom end of the bands, in principle a deeply regressive tax. For those on low incomes, the loss of services inherent in freezing council tax has a far greater effect - while those at in the top tax bands get a much bigger saving than they lose through cuts in services. In other words, Labour still claims to speak for the poor and vulnerable but in general is advocating policies that have precisely the opposite effect. And it appears to have bought into precisely the sort of low-tax rhetoric that Pickles uses to justify his assault on local authority power. One would like to think that Labour would know better - but recent history suggests otherwise (students of urban development will realise that Labour's urban legacy in Government will be the erosion of local democracy, the privatisation of public space, the gated estate, the private mall and the CCTV camera - in the essentials of urban policy, as in so much else, Labour and Tory are increasingly indistinguishable). So why the inconsistencies? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Labour in Brighton is still fighting the 2010 General Election, and still smarting at the fact that, having taken for granted that it would get the progressive vote in this city, it lost to a candidate who outflanked it on the left and continues to provide real opposition to the coalition in a way that the national Labour leadership just doesn't appear to have the stomach for. In other words, this is not about the good of the city, or opposing the vicious cuts imposed from Whitehall - Labour is indulging in the politics of emotional spasm, still smarting over its defeat and throwing a toddler hissy fit that must be giving Brighton's Tories quite a lot of quiet satisfaction. It looks very much like a group that has lost the will to argue for change and is content with throwing its toys around instead. Is this what the Labour group entered politics for? Labour has the chance to support a budget that, following public consultation, seeks to protect services in a hugely hostile climate, at the expense of a modest rise in Council Tax - 50p per week for the average family. It's a test, really, of Labour's seriousness of purpose and whether it's still prepared to stick up for the poorest people in society.

Here here from a Labour supporter who has never voted Green. Warren you ain't fooling anyone! And your views on the other labour councils not taking the freeze con please?

I couldn't agree more- fantastic analytical piece. But alas I am still a tad confused about 'party politics'.
- we can by and large all agree on services to retain
- we can all agree to a definition of groups of disadvantaged we ought to support.

None of the above is party politics, so why the hell can't the parties simply do the best for us than all of this rhetorical nonsense?
(yes the irony of me pointing out party political rhetoric by using what is ultimately a rhetorical statement!)

The problem is that the Greens are so far to the left and so idealistic, that it makes the Labour party here look quite pragmatic and sensible (and I've never supported the Labour party).

The Greens appear to have become deaf and dogmatic. They say they are listening, they have a flurry of social media communications on their policies yet they don't want to do what people are telling thrm to do- don't increase Council Tax.

I think this is a Poll Tax moment for the Green party and it's downhill from here.

Let's just nail this "what the people want" notion. 7000 people took part in the Argus poll (actually, more accurately, 7000 votes were cast). Of those 68% voted against the council tax increase - less than 5000 people. So, at best, by my reckoning, about 4% of the adult population of the city have voted no to the tax rise. This generously assumes that there were even that many genuine votes. The Argus has admitted that only one vote per device was allowed - so most members of some families sharing computers were disenfranchised, whilst there was no control whatsoever how many times an individual voted using a different device each time. This is meant to somehow substitute for a proper democratic process - just because it tells some people what they want to hear.