Council Tax Referendum

[Stoo82]

1999 -just over 45% turnout - better than normal Council elections - 70% in favour.

Thats pretty good all things concidered.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Read your previous post. I was expecting you to respond to my original email. You delivered. I was hoping that you might be able to engage constructively. You haven't done thus far, but such things can change.

I've read my previous post thank you. YOU stated that, in your opinion, Green councillors were the best at interacting with the electorate. I, from my experience, believe otherwise. I was purely commenting on that single statement in your post - I didn't realise that the purpose of your post was for me personally to comment on every part of it ( hence why I was only quoting the part I wanted to comment on ).

You know perfectly well what my opinion of the Green administration is but clearly you want me to state it again. They are detached from reality and the referendum is nothing more than political grandstanding. They WANT to pick a fight with the government. That is more important to them than actually getting on and running this city. They are using emotional blackmail to encourage people to support the referendum - i.e. they have picked an emotive service such as caring for the vulnerable and effectively said that unless people support an inflation busting increase they won't be able to provide the service to the required level. No mention of cutting other services instead because that wouldn't suit their argument.

They have a close to zero chance of getting the rise through and they excuses will depend on how it's thrown out :

1. Labour and Tory parties block it - the Greens will then accuse them of abandoning the vulnerable of the city.

2. The public get the £230k referendum and vote "No". The Greens will then suggest that the Argus turned people against them and people were mislead into voting no.

Strangely the Greens won't say which budget the £230k will come from if they lose the referendum.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

I've read my previous post thank you. YOU stated that, in your opinion, Green councillors were the best at interacting with the electorate. I, from my experience, believe otherwise. I was purely commenting on that single statement in your post - I didn't realise that the purpose of your post was for me personally to comment on every part of it ( hence why I was only quoting the part I wanted to comment on ).

You know perfectly well what my opinion of the Green administration is but clearly you want me to state it again. They are detached from reality and the referendum is nothing more than political grandstanding. They WANT to pick a fight with the government. That is more important to them than actually getting on and running this city. They are using emotional blackmail to encourage people to support the referendum - i.e. they have picked an emotive service such as caring for the vulnerable and effectively said that unless people support an inflation busting increase they won't be able to provide the service to the required level. No mention of cutting other services instead because that wouldn't suit their argument.

They have a close to zero chance of getting the rise through and they excuses will depend on how it's thrown out :

1. Labour and Tory parties block it - the Greens will then accuse them of abandoning the vulnerable of the city.

2. The public get the £230k referendum and vote "No". The Greens will then suggest that the Argus turned people against them and people were mislead into voting no.

Strangely the Greens won't say which budget the £230k will come from if they lose the referendum.

Whether they win the referendum or not it will still cost £230,000, which will reduce the amount they raise from the referendum should it be successful.

 

[Machiavelli]

I've read my previous post thank you. YOU stated that, in your opinion, Green councillors were the best at interacting with the electorate. I, from my experience, believe otherwise. I was purely commenting on that single statement in your post - I didn't realise that the purpose of your post was for me personally to comment on every part of it ( hence why I was only quoting the part I wanted to comment on ).

What I actually stated is this which I've copied from the original post:
This burden falls on the Greens even more because one of their long-standing policies has been to seek to involve, and respond to, the electorate more than the other parties.
I'm struggling to understand how you've interpreted that I was expecting you to comment on every part of my original post. I challenge you to indicate where I've either stated this or even implied it.
As for the rest of your post, I hadn't heard these details before, in fact, we had an exchange where you indicated that you'd refrain from providing me with the details (I can't be bothered to find that post). So, no, I didn't want you to state your case again, but thanks anyway.
So, it seems that you've got every point wrong. Why is this?

 

[symyjym]

Well, my experience of contacting councillors is somewhat different to yours. You seem to think that your contact with councillors is either on a par with, or more important than, a referendum. Why is this?

Really depends what you have contacted them for, can you elaborate on the issue/s you have contacted them about?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

As far as I know every other council is freezing the increase or putting it up by the maximum allowed 1.99%.

 

[Machiavelli]

Really depends what you have contacted them for, can you elaborate on the issue/s you have contacted them about?

Yes, I contacted my ward Green councillor, Bill Randall, about a developer's plans for a plot up my street.
And, on another point, great to see those three scoring today.

 

[symyjym]

Yes, I contacted my ward Green councillor, Bill Randall, about a developer's plans for a plot up my street.
And, on another point, great to see those three scoring today.

Yep on this point any councillor from any party would have the courtesy to respond to you. As I said it depends on what they are contacted for.

I do not have an allegiance to any party and have contacted all of them at some point. I had good correspondence with some members of the Greens before they were elected, but as soon as they took office they have been reluctant to discuss something they supported in principle previously.

Yep great to see March. Ince and Obika on the score sheet.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Mister KitKat (won't use that phrase again to precede his name) has not only cited adult social care as a justification for the proposed tax rise, but has also said the money is needed for donations to charitable causes.

Err? Excuse me! I choose where my charity goes, not someone who probably has entirely different social issues on their conscience than me, and who also holds political views which I probably could not be more at odds with.

You cannot reason with the greens. A crap council more intent on inflating their massive egos than doing what is best for the city.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Interesting rant, but short on substance and value. That rant is all about 'me, me, me', and not about the city as a whole.

The Greens do like to engage on just about every issue - almost to a fault, much to the mirth of Labour and the Tories, who believe that the decision was taken at the ballot box. Now that's arrogant.

As stated earlier, you are falling into the well-laid trap of making this a Green against Others campaign, which has little value.

I think your not reading it right, the conservative and labour councillors acted on his request for actions but the Greens did not.
Therefore he values them more than and and his experiance the greens do not care about as an resident and individual of Brighton,What's wrong with that?

It appears you are saying that they care for the majority not the minority?

 

[Garage_Doors]

but has also said the money is needed for donations to charitable causes.

[MENTION=257]The Large One[/MENTION] as the NSC Green spokesperson, Is the above actually true? Is so that is disgraceful spending my/our money on charities we may not approve of. As stated by others, I will choose which charities I wish to donate to.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

What I actually stated is this which I've copied from the original post:
This burden falls on the Greens even more because one of their long-standing policies has been to seek to involve, and respond to, the electorate more than the other parties.
I'm struggling to understand how you've interpreted that I was expecting you to comment on every part of my original post. I challenge you to indicate where I've either stated this or even implied it. - with this "I was expecting you to respond to my original email. You delivered."

As for the rest of your post, I hadn't heard these details before, in fact, we had an exchange where you indicated that you'd refrain from providing me with the details (I can't be bothered to find that post). So, no, I didn't want you to state your case again, but thanks anyway.
So, it seems that you've got every point wrong. Why is this?

I really don't know what you're going on about here. Glad to see the typical Green arrogance though "you've got every point wrong" -

At least we won't have to suffer a Green council for very much longer.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I think your not reading it right, the conservative and labour councillors acted on his request for actions but the Greens did not.
Therefore he values them more than and and his experiance the greens do not care about as an resident and individual of Brighton,What's wrong with that?

It appears you are saying that they care for the majority not the minority?

Indeed - and my area not have a Green councillor is irrelevent as the Green councillors I contacted were on relevant committees ( as were some of the Labour and Conservative members but they had the politeness and professionalism to respond to me ).

 

[Machiavelli]

I really don't know what you're going on about here. Glad to see the typical Green arrogance though "you've got every point wrong" -

At least we won't have to suffer a Green council for very much longer.

The reason why you don't know what's going on is that you are incapable of following an argument, which is another way of saying that you don't understand logic. You also seem incapable of understanding the English language.
For instance, you've cut-and-pasted one of my earlier comments that said: "I was expecting you to respond to my original email." You, somehow, have interpreted this to mean "I was expecting you to respond to every comment in my original email."
I can see the difference between these two statements, and I'd expect most on NSC can as well. Do you want to relent, and admit that there's a difference or do you want to wallow in your idiocy, and expose yourself to others as wallowing in such idiocy?

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Yes, I contacted my ward Green councillor, Bill Randall, about a developer's plans for a plot up my street.
And, on another point, great to see those three scoring today.

The piano warehouse by chance?

 

[Machiavelli]

The piano warehouse by chance?

No, but I'm not far from you.

 

[ROSM]

Interesting rant, but short on substance and value. That rant is all about 'me, me, me', and not about the city as a whole.

The Greens do like to engage on just about every issue - almost to a fault, much to the mirth of Labour and the Tories, who believe that the decision was taken at the ballot box. Now that's arrogant.

As stated earlier, you are falling into the well-laid trap of making this a Green against Others campaign, which has little value.

I wouldn't say the Argus is anti green. I would say the greens are anti Argus having received a very abusive response from one of their number because of a very old connection I have with the paper. Bill Randall perhaps the one statesmanlike green councillor couldn't unite the party so had to stand down rather than oversee a civil war. Kitcat now has that.

I also believe the Greens could and should have worked with all parties to agree a budget in difficult times. Sadly itvwasnt possible. I certainly think this may be a self inflicted gunshot wound for them.and knowing the cost of the falmer referendum held at the same time as full local elections, I think the figure will be a good midpoint of the estimates without taking into account council funded printing of their proposals and rationale

 

[Wardy]

The thing that a lot of the press seem to be missing is that councils and other preceptors start working on their budgets in September. In East Sussex for example the Fire Brigade have already said they are considering a 1.94% increase (just below the threshold which while at 2%, bills by law have to show increases to 1 decimal place so 1.95% would have to show as 2% on the bills). However the thresholds for a referendum are not officially set until the end of January. The threshold limit is per-preceptor not the overall bill. So in East Sussex should the limit be 1.5% and the fire brigade go with 1.94% then we would have to have a referendum. Though the cost of this is born by the preceptor it does have implications to the rest of the people money is collected for. This is because the billing authority cannot carry out any recovery action until after the result of the referendum. Should that be lost every household in the effected are have to be re-billed. This is not just a costly exercise but also not straight forward. Software systems need to be adapted to allow it for starters. I am part of the team that do the work to produce the bills in Eastbourne and I have to say I am dreading the thought of having to re-bill.

 

[The Large One]

As an interesting aside, the GMB, Labour's main backers in the city, are really not happy with Labour's position on this.

They're asking for alternative proposals, and what they intend to do to make up the shortfall, and none are forthcoming.

Similarly, reading through the thread, there does seem to be some pretty basic lack of understanding as to how council budgeting - ANY council budgeting - works. The rules are extremely tight, the budgeting from central government - and let's be adundantly clear, they are the ones to blame for this - is even tighter.

I do find it amazing the central government escapes so much scorn when they are actually playing politics with people's lives. They do this on a national (e.g. Atos) and local level.

 

[Machiavelli]

I do find it amazing the central government escapes so much scorn when they are actually playing politics with people's lives. They do this on a national (e.g. Atos) and local level.

That's because there's no organisation that submits them to appropriate scrutiny. The vast majority of the press is owned by oligarchs based in tax havens, who are vanguards in the neoliberal revolution. The BBC's politics team is dominated by Tories (Robinson, Landale, etc) and, beyond that, is running scared because of the way the press scrutinises it. First Thatcher and now Pickles have eviscerated local government and local democracy yet, as you point out, it's not widely recognised.