Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Surrey confirms plans to raise council tax by 15%
Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
Pages: 1, 2
Biker1
Personally I would not vote for this unless I could scrutinise current council spending and be convinced that current taxes were being spent in what I would consider the right places and that the necessary economies had been made.
Comparing with a domestic situation, upon finding that your income did not meet your expenditure I find it unlikely that your employer would agree to a 15% pay rise?
You would instead have to reorganise your finances, yes?
newres
Interesting article here.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/ja...ise-social-care
Biker1
Interesting, but will / can it be implemented without a referendum as it is above the government's permitted rise threshold?
I would predict the majority will vote against such a steep rise, so what then?
newres
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jan 21 2017, 08:00 PM) *
Interesting, but will / can it be implemented without a referendum as it is above the government's permitted rise threshold?
I would predict the majority will vote against such a steep rise, so what then?

Would you vote again knowing they are a Tory council, have made already enormous savings, but the cuts imposed by central government mean that they can't meet their obligations without the raise? I wouldn't be keen to pay 15% more either, but on the face of it their case is compelling.

"Hodge said his council had made 450m in savings since 2010, and was on track to save 700m by 2020, with demand for social care rising all the time."
On the edge
QUOTE (newres @ Jan 21 2017, 09:37 PM) *
Would you vote again knowing they are a Tory council, have made already enormous savings, but the cuts imposed by central government mean that they can't meet their obligations without the raise? I wouldn't be keen to pay 15% more either, but on the face of it their case is compelling.

"Hodge said his council had made 450m in savings since 2010, and was on track to save 700m by 2020, with demand for social care rising all the time."


Given the similar political complexion of HMG and Surrey County Council; I smell a rat. There is an answer to Surrey's problem of course, but Unison certainly won't like it.
Biker1
15%?!!
Look at the hoo-ha over 1-2% rise in rail fares!
I think the nub is that people rarely, if ever, vote for a tax rise.
Andy Capp
I see a no vote as the council being given a mandate to make further cuts it doesn't want to make.
On the edge
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jan 22 2017, 10:31 AM) *
I see a no vote as the council being given a mandate to make further cuts it doesn't want to make.


If it's a Tory controlled Council, it should say 'pretends it doesn't want to make'.

Perhaps it's high time the idea that voters would have far more influence if they simply spoilt their ballot paper by adding a 'none of these' box. It really does disturb them!
Simon Kirby
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jan 22 2017, 09:39 AM) *
15%?!!
Look at the hoo-ha over 1-2% rise in rail fares!
I think the nub is that people rarely, if ever, vote for a tax rise.

Council services need to be paid for, I applaud what they've done and it's shameful that the WBC Tory administration has not done the same. Society needs public services; the provision of public services is a pretty good working definition of what society is. I especially don't want to see public services to vulnerable people slashed. However, I feel like I'm already paying plenty of tax and I'd first like to see the parishes pared-back to basics and their precepts applied to something more deserving than flag-poles and a new hat for the mayor.
user23
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jan 21 2017, 07:19 PM) *
Personally I would not vote for this unless I could scrutinise current council spending and be convinced that current taxes were being spent in what I would consider the right places and that the necessary economies had been made.
Comparing with a domestic situation, upon finding that your income did not meet your expenditure I find it unlikely that your employer would agree to a 15% pay rise?
You would instead have to reorganise your finances, yes?
Yes you're right, however reorganising their finances will mean cutting back on social care and other services.

They've calculated how much they need to raise council tax by not to have to do this, and they're obliged to give people the choice through a referendum as it's over the 3.99% threshold.

As for scrutiniszing their finances, you can see everything they spent over 500 here.
On the edge
Quite facinating, then there is the Oxfordshire idea, which is apparently to have one unitary authority for the whole area because it's cheaper, more efficient and far less confusing for the public! Of course, 'fact based evidence' from good old West Berkshire shows that is all utter nonsense.

A perfect storm is brewing!
user23
QUOTE (On the edge @ Jan 22 2017, 07:48 PM) *
Quite facinating, then there is the Oxfordshire idea, which is apparently to have one unitary authority for the whole area because it's cheaper, more efficient and far less confusing for the public! Of course, 'fact based evidence' from good old West Berkshire shows that is all utter nonsense.

A perfect storm is brewing!
Apparently the plan in Oxfordshire is for "Unitary Districts", much like Berkshire.
x2lls
Is there now a situation, whereby those can ill afford a rise in the precept, get dragged into an increase of their outgoings, based on those of the population that said yes, can feel to be 'honorable', can afford to pay the extra, and don't need the financial support required?
On the edge
QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 22 2017, 08:19 PM) *


Quite!

Unbelievable, like suggesting John Lewis should make Sir Philip Green CEO.
blackdog
QUOTE (newres @ Jan 21 2017, 09:37 PM) *
"Hodge said his council had made 450m in savings since 2010, and was on track to save 700m by 2020, with demand for social care rising all the time."


450m is a lot of savings, but, in terms of an budget of 1.68billion (after the cuts) and spread over 7 years it's not quite such an impressive performance. I can't find the equivalent figure for West Berks, but I suspect it might be a higher proportion of their 2017 budget.
Simon Kirby
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jan 22 2017, 11:23 PM) *
450m is a lot of savings, but, in terms of an budget of 1.68billion (after the cuts) and spread over 7 years it's not quite such an impressive performance. I can't find the equivalent figure for West Berks, but I suspect it might be a higher proportion of their 2017 budget.

You say "savings", and that obviously play well to a Tory audience, but what we're actually talking about is slashing the provision of social service.
JeffG
QUOTE (x2lls @ Jan 22 2017, 09:43 PM) *
Is there now a situation, whereby those can ill afford a rise in the precept, get dragged into an increase of their outgoings, based on those of the population that said yes, can feel to be 'honorable', can afford to pay the extra, and don't need the financial support required?

You mean like the way nearly half the country was dragged out of the EU against their will? It's just democracy at work, innit?
blackdog
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jan 23 2017, 08:16 AM) *
You say "savings", and that obviously play well to a Tory audience, but what we're actually talking about is slashing the provision of social service.

I followed the theme of the quote - but, yes, savings are cuts and cuts are savings. And, since everything a local council does is provide social services that's what's being cut.

However, this year's budget is the first to be set since 2010 that is lower than the 2010 figure.

I have found rough details of the WBC cuts since 2010 and have a figure of 43.2m - in terms of a 120m annual budget it is significantly higher than the Surrey cuts over the same period (450m from a 1,600m annual budget).

Putting it another way Surrey spends around 1400 for each person in the county, West Berks spends 780.

Surrey gets 122 a head in government grant, WBC gets 61.

If WBC could spend 1400 per head all the cuts would be history, even getting the same grant would mean another 9.5m to spend.

Either West Berks is much more efficient or significantly stingier than Surrey!

je suis Charlie
QUOTE (JeffG @ Jan 23 2017, 09:27 AM) *
You mean like the way nearly half the country was dragged out of the EU against their will? It's just democracy at work, innit?

Or, over half the country was being forced to remain against their will.
On the edge
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jan 23 2017, 09:31 AM) *
I followed the theme of the quote - but, yes, savings are cuts and cuts are savings. And, since everything a local council does is provide social services that's what's being cut.

However, this year's budget is the first to be set since 2010 that is lower than the 2010 figure.

I have found rough details of the WBC cuts since 2010 and have a figure of 43.2m - in terms of a 120m annual budget it is significantly higher than the Surrey cuts over the same period (450m from a 1,600m annual budget).

Putting it another way Surrey spends around 1400 for each person in the county, West Berks spends 780.

Surrey gets 122 a head in government grant, WBC gets 61.

If WBC could spend 1400 per head all the cuts would be history, even getting the same grant would mean another 9.5m to spend.

Either West Berks is much more efficient or significantly stingier than Surrey!


So, if we boil this down, it's just more evidence that local government in the UK is a complete mess. It is also clear evidence that the Government wants to end this nonsense and eliminate management of 'services' locally. The Tories see this as a means to finally abolish the public sector and for Labour, their ethos is naturally centralisation. Do it properly and the logical way to abolish local taxation in such a small country becomes acceptable to the electorate. So, let the storm rage and the punters will be begging for it.


JeffG
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Jan 23 2017, 09:39 AM) *
Or, over half the country was being forced to remain against their will.

Now you are being nonsensical. There was a referendum. Unsurprisingly, the majority decided the outcome.
je suis Charlie
QUOTE (JeffG @ Jan 23 2017, 11:19 AM) *
Now you are being nonsensical. There was a referendum. Unsurprisingly, the majority decided the outcome.

Democratically.
newres
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Jan 23 2017, 11:38 AM) *
Democratically.

Although Nigel Farage did say he would not accept such a close vote if it were remain and would consider it "unfinished business".
Turin Machine
QUOTE (newres @ Jan 23 2017, 05:09 PM) *
Although Nigel Farage did say he would not accept such a close vote if it were remain and would consider it "unfinished business".

And 'project fear' predicted the sky to fall and a plague of locusts O'er the land, still waiting. Tick tock. tongue.gif
Andy Capp
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Jan 23 2017, 05:54 PM) *
And 'project fear' predicted the sky to fall and a plague of locusts O'er the land, still waiting. Tick tock. tongue.gif

Not that your argument is relevant, but I think both sides used 'project BS'. Mind you, we haven't left yet.
user23
QUOTE (newres @ Jan 23 2017, 05:09 PM) *
Although Nigel Farage did say he would not accept such a close vote if it were remain and would consider it "unfinished business".
Here's an article published before the vote in which he warns that a '52-48 result would be unfinished business'.

Funny how, because it went his way, it's not interested in this any more.
je suis Charlie
Cos Brexit an the election of Donald trump is a secret right wing conspiracy designed to undermine the liberal social element and lead to world chaos presided over by a cabal of billionaire oilmen. Right?
Andy Capp
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Jan 24 2017, 12:40 AM) *
Cos Brexit an the election of Donald trump is a secret right wing conspiracy designed to undermine the liberal social element and lead to world chaos presided over by a cabal of billionaire oilmen. Right?

Or Putin.
Turin Machine
Well that's it then, go back to parliament. Ooh exciting times ahead. Not the judgement many wanted, but it's right, under the law it's right. Theresa needs a better lawyer if he didn't see that one. dry.gif
Andy Capp
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Jan 24 2017, 09:44 AM) *
Well that's it then, go back to parliament. Ooh exciting times ahead. Not the judgement many wanted, but it's right, under the law it's right. Theresa needs a better lawyer if he didn't see that one. dry.gif

I'd like to think it helps for more representative legislation, unless the Monster Raving Tories decide to keep things from the house!
Turin Machine
How so?
Andy Capp
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Jan 24 2017, 10:22 AM) *
How so?

Because that's how our democracy is set. Members of parliament represent their party and constituents. If the cabinet decided, then that would mean fewer people would be represented.
blackdog
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jan 24 2017, 07:51 AM) *
Or Putin.


Putin is a billionaire oilman.
blackdog
QUOTE (JeffG @ Jan 23 2017, 11:19 AM) *
Now you are being nonsensical. There was a referendum. Unsurprisingly, the majority decided the outcome.

Or those that didn't bother to vote decided the outcome.

We're leaving, I'm losing my rights as an EU citizen sad.gif. Faceless bureacrats in Whitehall will take over from faceless bureaucrats in Brussels until Trump sorts out a trade deal with us that will grant power to faceless bureaucrats in Washington. Then we will make a deal with the EU and the faceless bureacrats in Brussels will be back. There will always be faceless bureaucrats, I could never see why I should worry about where their offices were.

Meanwhile the devaluation of the pound means my savings are worth less and my pension is worth less. The only ray of hope is that increased inflation might see a rise in interest rates at last.
On the edge
Oh I dont know Blackdog, it always seemed to me that being a citizen of the EU was rather similar to being a citizen of the USSR. Unless you lived in the controlling state, pity you!
Andy Capp
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jan 24 2017, 03:40 PM) *
Or those that didn't bother to vote decided the outcome.

Or those that had no idea what was going on or how to vote.
Andy Capp
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jan 24 2017, 03:30 PM) *
Putin is a billionaire oilman.

He's more than that: he's head of the government of a world power.
Turin Machine
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jan 24 2017, 07:34 PM) *
Or those that had no idea what was going on or how to vote.

Weak, very weak.
Biker1
Well there you go!
No need for a referendum here, just hit 'em with the max. we can.
5%? - wish my income would go up by that much! angry.gif
Andy Capp
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 9 2017, 08:42 PM) *
Well there you go!
No need for a referendum here, just hit 'em with the max. we can.
5%? - wish my income would go up by that much! angry.gif

3.99% last year too!
Andy Capp
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 9 2017, 08:42 PM) *
Well there you go!
No need for a referendum here, just hit 'em with the max. we can.
5%? - wish my income would go up by that much! angry.gif

3.99% last year too!
Biker1
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 10 2017, 02:45 AM) *
3.99% last year too!

Yes and that! angry.gif
Bottomless pit of money sitting spare with the working, tax paying population so it would seem.
Wish I had that to draw on! rolleyes.gif
blackdog
Localism in action! Transfer the tax burdon from corporations and high earners to council taxpayers whille issuing edicts from Whitehall to tell councils what they have to spend it on.

And when are they going to come good on their pledge to allow councils to keep all of their business rates?
user23
QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 10 2017, 07:01 PM) *
Localism in action! Transfer the tax burdon from corporations and high earners to council taxpayers whille issuing edicts from Whitehall to tell councils what they have to spend it on.

And when are they going to come good on their pledge to allow councils to keep all of their business rates?
Surrey County Council to take part in business rate pilot scheme to plug massive funding gaps
On the edge
QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 11 2017, 01:05 PM) *


Umm. I wonder what will be done to 'plug the funding gap' when business rates are taken from the Givernment's purse? Is this not simply robbing Peter to pay Paul?
user23
QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 12 2017, 08:12 AM) *
Umm. I wonder what will be done to 'plug the funding gap' when business rates are taken from the Givernment's purse? Is this not simply robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Who's planning to take Business Rates from the Government's purse?
On the edge
QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 12 2017, 09:35 AM) *
Who's planning to take Business Rates from the Government's purse?


Well, presumably the business rate in Surrey is being paid to someone? That someone isn't going to be too pleased are they?
user23
QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 12 2017, 03:02 PM) *
Well, presumably the business rate in Surrey is being paid to someone? That someone isn't going to be too pleased are they?
I don't think they're going to be reassigned from a specific Government department to Surrey, no, but I see what you mean, Government won't be able to spend the money they give to Surrey.

It's really a drop in the ocean in terms of something like the defence budget though.

On the edge
QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 12 2017, 03:49 PM) *
I don't think they're going to be reassigned from a specific Government department to Surrey, no, but I see what you mean, Government won't be able to spend the money they give to Surrey.

It's really a drop in the ocean in terms of something like the defence budget though.


Yes, I'd agree with all that. Its like throwing herrings to seals, keeps them happy for awhile. It the government really believed in 'localism', they'd keep right out of local government financing, which won't happen anytime soon.
Turin Machine
It's like feeding strawberries to donkeys! angry.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.