Oh dear - it would appear the Greens council tax increase has been defeated !!!!

[Common as Mook]

The Brighton Green Party tried to make a political point, and lost, to the benefit of homeowners/tenants.

And therein lies the crux of the argument.

Looking forward to my city being run by more capable hands after the next election.

 

[Fef]

The level of political 'debate' on here is sometimes so high it leaves my flabber-absolutely-gasted!! Please f*** off you brain-dead morons - we are talking about peoples jobs, homes and futures!!!

The level of political debate on NSC is frequently matched, for example, by that exhibited by the members the House of Commons; our politicians have provided an example for the rest of the country to follow. If they spent less time trying to score cheap but high-profile points over one another, then things might improve.

However, democracy is democracy, and people are entitled to their views on all forums - whether they are 'informed' views or not.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Oh great, the paying less tax must be a good thing goons are out in force. You realise this will lead to a massive hike in a couple of years time?

Only if we continue to fund the liberal, wet policies that you usually support. Hopefully in a couple of years we will have a new council that will stop spending OUR/MY money on so many minority issues.

 

[Common as Mook]

I work for the Greens, and so far they're a breath of fresh air.

Enlighten us then instead of giving us cheap political soundbites.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Surely that is the responsibility of the company that runs the car parks?

There was a significant amount of money in the Greens budget to paint the car parks owned by the council. Even if they outsource the day to day management of the car parks I would imagine the council still have to provide the funds for maintenance.

 

[Superphil]

Only if we continue to fund the liberal, wet policies that you usually support. Hopefully in a couple of years we will have a new council that will stop spending OUR/MY money on so many minority issues.

Irrespective of whether they are deemed wet, liberal or anything else, it would be refreshing for an elected political party to have a go at doing what the electorate want them to do, and also to stop doing the things the electorate don't want them to do. This would for sure involve cutting back on a number of apparently worthless projects, but would also see them increase spending on other things. It is a bit catch 22, and I know referendums are not the very best ways of making decisions, but I am sure if political parties did use referendums once in a while they would very soon get a clearer view on what people want, not what they want, or what they want people to have.

 

[The Large One]

Only if we continue to fund the liberal, wet policies that you usually support. Hopefully in a couple of years we will have a new council that will stop spending OUR/MY money on so many minority issues.

Can you name any wet/liberal policies in this budget - 95% of which, incidentally, was approved by Council on all sides?

 

[Albumen]

Enlighten us then instead of giving us cheap political soundbites.

Eh?
Anyway I think it will be a waste of time as you've all made up your minds already.

 

[Common as Mook]

Eh?
Anyway I think it will be a waste of time as you've all made up your minds already.

"The Greens have been a breath of fresh air"

A political soundbite with absolutely no evidence to back it up. I'm a fairly open minded chap and I'm genuinely interested as to what policies have been a "breath of fresh air"

 

[The Large One]

The Brighton Green Party tried to make a political point, and lost, to the benefit of homeowners/tenants.

Exactly the same political point many other councils - Labour and (mostly) Conservative - are making up and down the country.

I expect you'll give them the same critique.

 

[Common as Mook]

Exactly the same political point many other councils - Labour and (mostly) Conservative - are making up and down the country.

I expect you'll give them the same critique.

He doesn't live anywhere else. He lives in Brighton (I think)

I know I most certainly would, regardless of who's in power.

 

[The Large One]

He doesn't live anywhere else. He lives in Brighton (I think)

I know I most certainly would, regardless of who's in power.

The point I was making was the implication (perhaps I've mis-read his tone) in his post that this was a Green Party-inspired piece of political dogma. There may or may not be some truth in that, that's down to the individual to consider that.

However, if Tory councils are doing the same thing for the same reasons - I don't see that it is.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

all politicians are morons

having said that, people who don't vote because it's cool not to, or to stick it to the 'man' are morons also. Man I know a lot of them..

 

[Common as Mook]

The point I was making was the implication (perhaps I've mis-read his tone) in his post that this was a Green Party-inspired piece of political dogma. There may or may not be some truth in that, that's down to the individual to consider that.

However, if Tory councils are doing the same thing for the same reasons - I don't see that it is.

Fair.

However, the nature of the Green Party and the fact that Brighton is very much a testing ground for their policies, I think it's perfectly fair to assume that this is a case of political point scoring

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Exactly the same political point many other councils - Labour and (mostly) Conservative - are making up and down the country.

I expect you'll give them the same critique.

I can't find the article now but let's not build this rebellion up as something big. From memory it's less than 20 councils that have rejected the grant from over 450 councils in total !

 

[The Large One]

Fair.

However, the nature of the Green Party and the fact that Brighton is very much a testing ground for their policies, I think it's perfectly fair to assume that this is a case of political point scoring

Insofar as being a left-wing party and wishing to retain frontline services by method of taxation, rather abolishing services through cuts, then of course politics enters into it. Not that many policies in the budget are 'green' as such, and those that are generally have cross-party support.

The issue, for me, seems to be that if central government had made funds available to local authorities (i.e. the money was there - even if they did raid a civil service pension fund to pay for it), why did it have to come with a caveat of 'no council tax rise'? It's not something that's on offer nex year, so why only now?

Why did they need to interfere and muddy the waters?

 

[Norman Potting]

My understanding of the Government grant/bribe (whatever you like to call it) is that last year it permitted Council's to increase their tax base figure permanently, this year it does not therefore it may leave a "cliff edge" to play catch up with next year (not my description, I believe I heard it from a Conservative Councillor).

Subsequently there is the potential for a big rise next year, or cuts in services. That is why many Council's, of various hues I believe, have thought long and hard about the implications of taking the money and impact on their future budgets.

Perhaps we need to visit this thread again this time next year?

 

[ROSM]

I'm not sure the Greens handled this particularly well. They did publish way in advance and sought feedback. They didnt however listen to that feedback which led to yesterday's council meeting.

I dont agree with the taking the Govt money just to avoid an increase. That money is a bribe and many other councils have rejected it.

But Kitcat tried to bulldoze this through as a show of strength and just like his meanderings over the Albion expansion plans, he's shown himself out of his depth. This was the time for all party discussions which didnt happen.

Bill Randall is an able politician, Pete West is also, Keith Taylor was a solid local councillor. With this tradition it is such a shame that the only candidate for Green convenor is Kitcat. I wonder if the Labour and Conservative groups will get together and vote against him being leader and place their own candidate? I think unlikely as they will be better served seeing him make an ass of himself for the next 2 years ahead of the next local elections.

 

[The Large One]

I'm not sure the Greens handled this particularly well. They did publish way in advance and sought feedback. They didnt however listen to that feedback which led to yesterday's council meeting.

I dont agree with the taking the Govt money just to avoid an increase. That money is a bribe and many other councils have rejected it.

But Kitcat tried to bulldoze this through as a show of strength and just like his meanderings over the Albion expansion plans, he's shown himself out of his depth. This was the time for all party discussions which didnt happen.

Bill Randall is an able politician, Pete West is also, Keith Taylor was a solid local councillor. With this tradition it is such a shame that the only candidate for Green convenor is Kitcat. I wonder if the Labour and Conservative groups will get together and vote against him being leader and place their own candidate? I think unlikely as they will be better served seeing him make an ass of himself for the next 2 years ahead of the next local elections.

I, too, have reservations about Jason Kitcat, seemingly wanting a fight at every turn. Hopefully he'll calm down a bit and realise he needs to operate for the good of the whole city, not just the anti-Tory part. I'd have preferred Ian Davey myself.

That Twitter spat a few weeks ago between him, Steve Bassam and Cllr Morgan (Lab) put none of them in a good light, and made them all look a bit foolish.

However, the council leader is, I'm pretty certain, selected from the largest group; he is the only declared candidate, and his role is only for one year, not for the rest of the council lifespan (two years).

What it will mean is that someone else will be chair of Finance, so hopefully a bit less posturing and a bit more co-operation will be in order by the time next year's budgets are debated - not that the vast majority of the Green budget didn't get through this time.

 

[ROSM]

However, the council leader is, I'm pretty certain, selected from the largest group; he is the only declared candidate, and his role is only for one year, not for the rest of the council lifespan (two years).

What it will mean is that someone else will be chair of Finance, so hopefully a bit less posturing and a bit more co-operation will be in order by the time next year's budgets are debated - not that the vast majority of the Green budget didn't get through this time.

I believe (but need to check) that the leader is elected by the full council so it is possible for minority parties to get together. Although there's no reason for them to do that here. Also the 1 year rule is a Green rule that convenors must submit themselves for re-election every year.