Who is to blame for the council tax fiasco?

[Guinness Boy]

So in their election manifesto the Conservatives promised to pass power down to town halls

One thing they haven't allowed them to do though is set their own council tax rise. Not if it goes over 2% anyway. As we know the Greens want to increase it by 4.75% triggering an expensive by-election (and to discuss it over a nice glass of wine). Labour and the Tories are blocking the budget and this will soon mean that the pro-localism Tories set our budget from central govenment.

A worse farce of hypocrisy and incompentence you would be hard pushed to find anywhere. I think we can all agree it's a joke. But NSC isn't about agreeing. It's about having a good old binfest about who's to blame. So who's FAULT is it? Go.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The Greens , it will come back to bite them on the arse next May.

 

[Footsoldier]

Shouldn't the Greens have a green bar?

 

[JJ McClure]

Am I following this correctly?
Are you saying that central government allow local councils to set their own council tax rises so long as it is not exorbitant? If so that seems like a reasonable idea.
Are you saying that the Greens are proposing a rise above this threshhold? If so that seems unreasonable.
Are you saying that Labour and the Conservatives are trying to block the rise? If so that seems reasonable.

Based on the above then surely the answer is that the Greens are to blame...or is that over simplistic.

 

[brakespear]

what council tax fiasco?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Am I following this correctly?
Are you saying that central government allow local councils to set their own council tax rises so long as it is not exorbitant? If so that seems like a reasonable idea. Yep
Are you saying that the Greens are proposing a rise above this threshhold? If so that seems unreasonable. Yep
Are you saying that Labour and the Conservatives are trying to block the rise? If so that seems reasonable. Yep

Based on the above then surely the answer is that the Greens are to blame...or is that over simplistic.

...

 

[The Large One]

Am I following this correctly?
Are you saying that central government allow local councils to set their own council tax rises so long as it is not exorbitant? If so that seems like a reasonable idea.
Are you saying that the Greens are proposing a rise above this threshhold? If so that seems unreasonable.
Are you saying that Labour and the Conservatives are trying to block the rise? If so that seems reasonable.

Based on the above then surely the answer is that the Greens are to blame...or is that over simplistic.

WAY too over-simplistic.

Fact is - everyone has a certain amount of blame to carry.

The Greens for not setting a budget which is deemed acceptable.
Labour for refusing to set an alternate budget - they've truly pissed the local GMB Union off, members of which are the most affected in this stand-off.
The Tories for willingly going along with central government's disdain for local government, and for not coming up with an alternative budget.

But none of this would be an issue if central government - Eric Pickles especially - didn't consider local government to be his plaything which he could yank and pull at every opportunity. For example, he cuts funding, then announces his fury when councils - including Tory councils - increase budgets by 1.96% (just below the 2% threshold to trigger a referendum).

Since 2010, Brighton & Hove, sadly, is the council in the south east which has had the biggest cut in settlement from central government, and has therefore had to make the biggest cuts. Thanks, Eric.

 

[keaton]

I would say Central Tories.
We vote in our local leaders, they should do what they are voted in for without being controlled by a government that preaches freedom for businesses and schools.

 

[sten_super]

Am I following this correctly?
Are you saying that central government allow local councils to set their own council tax rises so long as it is not exorbitant? If so that seems like a reasonable idea.
Are you saying that the Greens are proposing a rise above this threshhold? If so that seems unreasonable.
Are you saying that Labour and the Conservatives are trying to block the rise? If so that seems reasonable.

Based on the above then surely the answer is that the Greens are to blame...or is that over simplistic.

What counts as exorbitant? A 2% rise is in line with inflation, so in fact that's not a rise so much as a freeze.

The picture is also clouded by the fact that central government have substantially cut local spending that is allocated centrally, and handed responsibility for these areas over to local authorities. So they're being tasked to do more with at best the same funds (in fact it's more, as other local authority funding has also been cut). All the while the taxpayer expects to receive the same (or better) level of public services.

I don't live in Brighton, so don't know the ins and outs of the current situation. But there has to, somewhere, be a readjustment of expectations. Either taxpayers (and councils) expect a poorer quality of provision across a similar range of services as previously and/or accept that some services will cease to be operational, unless there's a significant increase in local government funding.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Labour for refusing to set an alternate budget - they've truly pissed the local GMB Union off, members of which are the most affected in this stand-off.

But Labour have offered an alternative budget - one including a 2% increase which seems reasonable. Sadly the Greens have gone for political gestures - i.e. we'll fight government cuts when in reality they mean they pass the cuts onto the hard pressing local taxpayer. Yeh, that's REALLY fighting government cuts !

 

[Hotchilidog]

The main villains are the central tories for slashing local government funding in general and for some reason hitting B&H funding particularly hard. Sadly the local labour party are only interested in headline generating mischief so that they can win seats back from the Greens at the next election. An infantile strategy but one which I feel will be successful.

 

[Machiavelli]

Am I following this correctly?
Are you saying that central government allow local councils to set their own council tax rises so long as it is not exorbitant? If so that seems like a reasonable idea.
Are you saying that the Greens are proposing a rise above this threshhold? If so that seems unreasonable.
Are you saying that Labour and the Conservatives are trying to block the rise? If so that seems reasonable.

Based on the above then surely the answer is that the Greens are to blame...or is that over simplistic.

You've actually set the case out pretty well, and the way you've done it does avoid confusion.
Would you change your mind on the first and second points if it were the case that the threshold is set at below inflation rates, and that there is a bribe to take central government money if you stay below the threshold, but that doesn't get included in the next year's calculation, which amounts to a further decrease?
What happens if, as is the case, the long-term cost of delivering local services is increasing?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Where is the option for David Burke?

 

[The Large One]

The main villains are the central tories for slashing local government funding in general and for some reason hitting B&H funding particularly hard. Sadly the local labour party are only interested in headline generating mischief so that they can win seats back from the Greens at the next election. An infantile strategy but one which I feel will be successful.

Maybe, but not necessarily with union support locally.

 

[JJ McClure]

You've actually set the case out pretty well, and the way you've done it does avoid confusion.
Would you change your mind on the first and second points if it were the case that the threshold is set at below inflation rates, and that there is a bribe to take central government money if you stay below the threshold, but that doesn't get included in the next year's calculation, which amounts to a further decrease?
What happens if, as is the case, the long-term cost of delivering local services is increasing?

Here I am trying to keep things simple (like me) and you've gone and confused me again

 

[spanish flair]

Where is the option for David Burke?

You are David Burke or a relative and I claim my £5

 

[The Large One]

Here I am trying to keep things simple (like me) and you've gone and confused me again

Sadly, there isn't one simple answer.

However, seeing as we have a press and media which will forgive this government just about anything, hearts and minds will usually sway the fence-sitters onto their side.

 

[JJ McClure]

The main villains are the central tories for slashing local government funding in general and for some reason hitting B&H funding particularly hard.

Not sure that you can blame central government for cutting local government funding in general considering the financial mess they inherited. Fair enough to villainise for cutting B&H funding more than other areas as it does smack of being politically motivated.

 

[Norman Potting]

What counts as exorbitant? A 2% rise is in line with inflation, so in fact that's not a rise so much as a freeze.

The picture is also clouded by the fact that central government have substantially cut local spending that is allocated centrally, and handed responsibility for these areas over to local authorities. So they're being tasked to do more with at best the same funds (in fact it's more, as other local authority funding has also been cut). All the while the taxpayer expects to receive the same (or better) level of public services.

I don't live in Brighton, so don't know the ins and outs of the current situation. But there has to, somewhere, be a readjustment of expectations. Either taxpayers (and councils) expect a poorer quality of provision across a similar range of services as previously and/or accept that some services will cease to be operational, unless there's a significant increase in local government funding.

In general terms I think that nails it, can't speak about B & H specifics.

 

[sten_super]

In general terms I think that nails it, can't speak about B & H specifics.

The cuts have (generally speaking) been achieved in precisely the manner that the central Tory government doesn't want - in that there has been a gradual reduction in the quality of all services provided by local authorities, rather than councils deciding on priorities and cutting altogether activities in other areas.

When they first announced large rises in Cambridge (in about 2008/9), along with an explanation as to why, I sent a letter to the city councillor in charge of setting Council Tax outlining my displeasure that they were trying to 'muddle through', rather than taking the long-term view that they were unlikely to claw back what they'd lost in the medium-term, and wouldn't they be better off making strategic decisions as to what to cut, rather than a gradual erosion of quality. Suffice to say the councillor didn't agree with me. However that attitude is prevalent across government, both central and local. I despaired reading an article last week about the MoD selling off a former tube station in London, as the defence minister announced that it was in the name of 'giving taxpayers the best return on their money' and proudly stating that the money would be allocated to the defence budget. For me, that's completely the wrong attitude - don't use one off windfalls to support previous levels of spending, but instead make cuts and save windfalls for precisely the kind of one-off expenditure that the initial investment must have represented. I also think that clearly getting rid of specific services will make it a lot clearer that it's due to a massive funding shortfall, rather than just because the public sector is often massively inefficient.