Who is to blame for the council tax fiasco?

[Hotchilidog]

All three parties voted to stop any proposal by the others being accepted. Greens and LAB voted against a CON freeze , Greens and CON voted against a LAB 2% increase , LAB and CON voted against a Greens 4.75% increase.

There is no referendum thanks to the labour party, unless I am being extremely dim (which in fairness I may well be and stand to be corrected).

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

There is no referendum thanks to the labour party, unless I am being extremely dim (which in fairness I may well be and stand to be corrected).

The Tories also voted against the 4.75% Green proposal. The only way for the 4.75% proposal to get a majority YES which would trigger a referendum would be if if either LAB or CON (or both) abstained.

 

[Guinness Boy]

All three parties voted to stop any proposal by the others being accepted. Greens and LAB voted against a CON freeze , Greens and CON voted against a LAB 2% increase , LAB and CON voted against a Greens 4.75% increase.

This is almost exactly the reason for the thread. You forgot to mention though that during these votes the Greens were in possession of a large quantity of wine though Jason Kitcat insists it was "Shopping for later". Makes me think evenings at Sven Rufus's are far more entertaining than just blogging about pink bikes.

 

[Hotchilidog]

The Tories also voted against the 4.75% Green proposal. The only way for the 4.75% proposal to get a majority YES which would trigger a referendum would be if if either LAB or CON (or both) abstained.

In that case my dimness is confirmed.

This still does not stop me from pointing the finger of blame at central government for their slashing of local govt funding. I also believe the brighton and hove labour party could have played a more constructive role in mitigating the effects of the cuts, but they would rather engage in petty party politics in attempt to regain power at the next election.

 

[LowerWesty]

If the financial situation in Brighton requires an increase in council tax of 4.75% and the decreases in Government funding since 2010 are a major factor then why didn't the Greens see this coming? Haven't they spent large sums of money imposing the 20mph speed limits, providing bus lanes and are now contemplating the funding of a very expensive platform on the sea front, and all these at a time of financial restraint?

What always appauls me is that whenever one 'Party' suggests something the other party/parties always oppose it, no matter how sensibly the proposal. And they all vote the same way, nobody appears to have the honesty,conviction and courage to consider the pros and cons and come to a considered conclusion. They all behave like sheep and do as they are told and that is what's wrong with British politics.

I watched the webcast and realised that this is one area where money is being saved, the sound was awful and the display of the results was amateurish.

Lastly does anybody honestly believe that the majority of Brighton and Hove voters, if asked, are you willing to pay more, will answer yes?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

This fiasco makes the 1980s Liverpool Militant's look sensible and well thought through (which they weren't by the way). Even Degsy wasn't this stupid.

 

[Blue3]

The greens have made some lovely paths through the woods and it's things like this they should stick to and not try and deal with things outside their single policy remit

 

[LowerWesty]

As it looks almost certain there will be no agreement at this evening's meeting regarding council tax. B&H face prospect of Pickles deciding for them.

God help B&H.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'd argue that as a minority administration they don't have a (clear) mandate from the population. You'll have to excuse my lack of knowledge of B&H politics, but I also don't know what platform the Greens have been campaigning on - was it to maintain the existing service provision? If so, then a case could be made that they have a mandate, but otherwise I think it's reasonable to put the decision to the masses.

I don't favour endless referendums, but I do like the idea of transparency in politics. If the Greens are attempting to put through something that wasn't in their manifesto then I think they should be answerable to the public. I was incredibly frustrated by the fact that, at the last general election, there was no discussion of cuts to public services and budgets, despite the fact that it was clearly going to be a massive issue in this parliament. All three parties largely skirted around the issues because it was unpopular with voters - but it has been THE defining issue for this government. That's not transparent (nor efficient) politics in my book. I'd like to think (although it's probably massively unrealistic) that if it became clear that significant decisions require public backing, politicians would be more up-front in the first place on the big issues.

Agree with you about lack of a mandate: only a majority administration has one, irrespective of whether it's a single party or a coalition. I also agree that there wasn't a proper debate in the run-up to the last general election.
On B&HCC, the Greens had a clear manifesto of opposing cuts. This was undermined when the Tories with the Lib Dems decided to 'devolve the axe', and pass the buck on to local councils, setting a maximum council tax limit of less than 2%, while also providing a temporary central government incentive for one year only, that was then taken away, so the local council has effectively had less money in subsequent budgets.
If Labour had any decency, it'd have joined a coalition with the Greens at the outset, but it just couldn't face being a junior partner to the Greens. And because of this, the Greens can either ignore their manifesto commitment of opposing cuts, or press ahead for a referendum. Either way, because they're a minority administration, they're reliant on minimal support from either the Tories or Labour.

 

[Machiavelli]

In that case my dimness is confirmed.

This still does not stop me from pointing the finger of blame at central government for their slashing of local govt funding. I also believe the brighton and hove labour party could have played a more constructive role in mitigating the effects of the cuts, but they would rather engage in petty party politics in attempt to regain power at the next election.

This post confirms that you're not dim, and understand precisely what's been going on

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Agree with you about lack of a mandate: only a majority administration has one, irrespective of whether it's a single party or a coalition. I also agree that there wasn't a proper debate in the run-up to the last general election.
On B&HCC, the Greens had a clear manifesto of opposing cuts. This was undermined when the Tories with the Lib Dems decided to 'devolve the axe', and pass the buck on to local councils, setting a maximum council tax limit of less than 2%, while also providing a temporary central government incentive for one year only, that was then taken away, so the local council has effectively had less money in subsequent budgets.
If Labour had any decency, it'd have joined a coalition with the Greens at the outset, but it just couldn't face being a junior partner to the Greens. And because of this, the Greens can either ignore their manifesto commitment of opposing cuts, or press ahead for a referendum. Either way, because they're a minority administration, they're reliant on minimal support from either the Tories or Labour.

But increasing council tax is NOT fighting cuts - it's just passing extra costs onto the taxpayer.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Haven't they spent large sums of money imposing the 20mph speed limits, providing bus lanes and are now contemplating the funding of a very expensive platform on the sea front, and all these at a time of financial restraint?

I think you'll find all those things quoted have been funded by government grants or in the case of the i360 a government loan.

 

[brighton bluenose]

Funding from central government to local councils had dipped significantly and is predicted to continue to do so.

Therefore I have every sympathy with councils who take the decision to increase Council Tax to protect services.

More than happy to pay the extra Council Tax proposed by the Greens in Brighton if it means frontline services or others which support the most vulnerable in our society are not cut.

Disappointed with the stance by local Labour however. Seem more intent on scoring political points at the moment than anything else. Appears they have decided they stand a good chance to capitalising on any collapse in Green vote next time round so are doing their best to make sure that happens.

This in bucket-loads - I want to see jobs maintained, to continue to receive decent services and to see those who REALLY need those services to continue to get them too and I'm happy to pay 4.75% extra to achieve that!

 

[jamie the seagull]

I'm not from Brighton but how the hell did you vote for this lot (Greens) get in......6% council tax rise proposed...

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11625913.Council__proposes_6__council_tax_rise/?ref=mr

 

[Eeyore]

Whatever happens, the council is facing a huge shortfall in central funding.

The next election is a good one to lose.