Well, now we know - the City Council's budget is sliced by £355,000, which by my rough back-of-an-envelope calauclations would be the equivalent of a 5% rise in council tax. That's a lot of money indeed but the challenge for councillors is taking that money out without people feeling the pain on the frontline.
The national government is running a consultation exercise asking the public where they would like to see cuts; I wonder if the City Council went to its residents and asked where we could spend less money, what they'd say?
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Labour plans £4bn worth of NHS cuts
The small print of the budget shows a £4bn reduction in the NHS budget.
Why is it that if this were a Conservative budget, the media, Unions and the Labour Party would call them "CUTS". There would be protests, direct action, campaigning & scare stories of vulnerable people dying.
But it's OK, because this is a Labour budget, so they are only "efficiency savings".
Phew.
Why is it that if this were a Conservative budget, the media, Unions and the Labour Party would call them "CUTS". There would be protests, direct action, campaigning & scare stories of vulnerable people dying.
But it's OK, because this is a Labour budget, so they are only "efficiency savings".
Phew.
It passed me by
Was there a Budget today? Really? That was it?!?
I had been keen to know how the government was going to tackle our record debt, support business, encourage enterprise and get people back to work. After all, this is what people on doorsteps want to know. But I don't think I am any further forward tonight.
The Chancellor spoke for an hour, but said nothing.
He whacked up the cost of cider (thanks Darling - he knows what I drink now!)
He stole a Conservative policy about Stamp Duty.
He admitted (I think) that his growth forecasts were wrong.
Petrol up, cigarettes up, booze up - again.
No rabbits. No hats. What was the point of this budget? Wouldn't it have been better to have held a General Election?
UPDATE: I know you can't fit every piece of economic news into the budget, but why on earth didn't the Chancellor mention billions of pounds worth of tax rises. I wonder why, in such a long speech with so little else to say, that was forgotten?
I had been keen to know how the government was going to tackle our record debt, support business, encourage enterprise and get people back to work. After all, this is what people on doorsteps want to know. But I don't think I am any further forward tonight.
The Chancellor spoke for an hour, but said nothing.
He whacked up the cost of cider (thanks Darling - he knows what I drink now!)
He stole a Conservative policy about Stamp Duty.
He admitted (I think) that his growth forecasts were wrong.
Petrol up, cigarettes up, booze up - again.
No rabbits. No hats. What was the point of this budget? Wouldn't it have been better to have held a General Election?
UPDATE: I know you can't fit every piece of economic news into the budget, but why on earth didn't the Chancellor mention billions of pounds worth of tax rises. I wonder why, in such a long speech with so little else to say, that was forgotten?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Normal Service to be resumed ...
After a short break from blogging, due to various factors, I am going to get back into it; with a by-election in Bowthorpe, the council budget and unitary delayed there will be plenty to talk about!
Monday, November 24, 2008
An Expensive Mistake
If the government is going to borrow up the hilt, and saddly every family in this country with an extraordinary amount of debt, then it ought to be for a very good reason - and it ought to work. For those who believe we should be borrowing our way out of recession this is way beyond their expectations, but we should also be hearing more from those who believe (like me) that we can achieve the same impact but done so by reducing the overall growth in spending. All over the country, families are tightening their belts (one resident saying to me this weekend, he didn't think his belt has any more notches) so why shouldn't the government?
The proposals announced today by the government left me totally underwhelmed; what in all this is going to make families start spending? The 2.5% VAT cut has left me actually angrier than relieved. How many retailers are going to pass this on? How many prices are going to be altered? Most people - worried about the overall economy - are not going to spend on the basis of this cut. It isn't targetted, doesn't apply to a lot of products and isn't enought to make a difference. Tiny adjustments here and there are not the solution.
The most bizarre aspect of the day, that we as one of Labour's favourite "hard working families" benefit little - but we'll certainly be hit by the higher tax to come later. For the first time in History, people will know before an election that Labour will raise their tax.
On the political side, I thought that George Osborne - and David Cameron on the media - did extremely well. He had some good points and looked like he was enjoying himself. Vince looked wobbly, to be honest, and Darling looked like a man against a wall. The laughter in the Commons when he said this problem was made abroad gave away the lie; everyone knows that Downing Street and Brown personally are at the heart of these problems.
Toady media types and celebrity commentators are lining up to call this brave, decisive and smacking of firm leadership. Far from it; this is the dying days of another failed government - they always leave us bankrupt, sky high borrowing and economic problems. Nothing announced today will change that.
The proposals announced today by the government left me totally underwhelmed; what in all this is going to make families start spending? The 2.5% VAT cut has left me actually angrier than relieved. How many retailers are going to pass this on? How many prices are going to be altered? Most people - worried about the overall economy - are not going to spend on the basis of this cut. It isn't targetted, doesn't apply to a lot of products and isn't enought to make a difference. Tiny adjustments here and there are not the solution.
The most bizarre aspect of the day, that we as one of Labour's favourite "hard working families" benefit little - but we'll certainly be hit by the higher tax to come later. For the first time in History, people will know before an election that Labour will raise their tax.
On the political side, I thought that George Osborne - and David Cameron on the media - did extremely well. He had some good points and looked like he was enjoying himself. Vince looked wobbly, to be honest, and Darling looked like a man against a wall. The laughter in the Commons when he said this problem was made abroad gave away the lie; everyone knows that Downing Street and Brown personally are at the heart of these problems.
Toady media types and celebrity commentators are lining up to call this brave, decisive and smacking of firm leadership. Far from it; this is the dying days of another failed government - they always leave us bankrupt, sky high borrowing and economic problems. Nothing announced today will change that.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A bad weekend for Norwich Labour
At the same time that a report declares that the only finacially viable Unitary solution is that of the whole county unitary and that the City model has huge financial risks, it has been revealed that there is a £19m hole in the pensions pot. The first of these comes as no surprise to anybody who has been following the unitary saga but the second both surprised and deeply worried me. In the DA report there are dozens of failings in City accounting and we are now at the point where the Labour executive cannot point the finger at past administrations and will have to take responsibility. There is an Audit Committee meeting next Friday; it looks set to be explosive.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Budget View from Earlham
As a political activist, the Budget is one of the great parliamentary set-pieces of the year. I could have gathered my A Level students around to watch it live and then spend the way bouncing from media outlet to blogs watching the reaction unfold.
However, given the utterly dull performance given by the Chancellor, Mr Darling, I am rather glad that didn't and I instead spent the evening with a team of campaigners in West Earlham. Amazingly, not a single person mentioned the budget on the doorsteps at all; but then, there wasn't much to mention.
So, the government got is figures wrong (again), booze and fags are to be taxed more and Darling cops out of any real reform at all. I suppose he was boxed in by the previous Chancellor - one, Gordon Brown - but still he could have done better than this, in terms of presentation if not actually policy changes. He was humiliated by David Cameron's strong, assured and detailed analysis and a few parliamentary speakers could learn something from Cameron about how to deliver a speech!
So given the budget was such a dud, I am pleased to have spent time on doorsteps rather than glued to the TV. We had a fantastic reception tonight, in roads that have traditionally not been good for us. What was marked is the number of people that said they would consider voting Conservative. I canvassed for the party in the mid-1990s; back then, barely more than a third of the country could ever see themselves as voting for us. From tonight, things are now very different. I'm sure Labour won't believe me, and because of their arrogance they wouldn't do anything even if they did, but they ought to be very worried indeed about the polling results in this community. Earlham believes Labour has failed them, and is actively looking for an alternative; it is now up to the Conservatives to step into the role of champion for the community.
However, given the utterly dull performance given by the Chancellor, Mr Darling, I am rather glad that didn't and I instead spent the evening with a team of campaigners in West Earlham. Amazingly, not a single person mentioned the budget on the doorsteps at all; but then, there wasn't much to mention.
So, the government got is figures wrong (again), booze and fags are to be taxed more and Darling cops out of any real reform at all. I suppose he was boxed in by the previous Chancellor - one, Gordon Brown - but still he could have done better than this, in terms of presentation if not actually policy changes. He was humiliated by David Cameron's strong, assured and detailed analysis and a few parliamentary speakers could learn something from Cameron about how to deliver a speech!
So given the budget was such a dud, I am pleased to have spent time on doorsteps rather than glued to the TV. We had a fantastic reception tonight, in roads that have traditionally not been good for us. What was marked is the number of people that said they would consider voting Conservative. I canvassed for the party in the mid-1990s; back then, barely more than a third of the country could ever see themselves as voting for us. From tonight, things are now very different. I'm sure Labour won't believe me, and because of their arrogance they wouldn't do anything even if they did, but they ought to be very worried indeed about the polling results in this community. Earlham believes Labour has failed them, and is actively looking for an alternative; it is now up to the Conservatives to step into the role of champion for the community.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Budget Debate
Yesterday was the longest and hardest council meeting of the year; both physcially in terms of the lenght and stress of the meeting but also because of the issues involved. Nobody in the council is an expert on every section of the budget and, despite our claims, no party leader has a total grasp even given all the extra meetings we've had on this recently. Our meeting saw some robust exchanges and some honest views being set out - given that most of the budget was thrashed out well in advance, god knows how long we'd have been there if we hadn't of done that!
Firstly the Leader of the Council, Cllr Morphew, moves the budget framework; that is the high level strategy direction that the budget will follow. Cllr Morphew couldn't resist turning it into a kind of two-year review of his administration; incuding battering the poor LibDems - the first of many batterings and their party must have left the chamber feeling very down indeed. Cllr Morphew set out changes to the financial regime, improvements in housing, CCTV extension ... in fact, I accuse dhim of sounding like a Stalinist Minister reeling off the tractor production figures. Outgoing LibDem Leader Cllr Hereward Cooke took an open shot at Cllr Morphew but seemed to be leaving his best fire for later. LibDem Cllr Carl Mayhew (Mile Cross) joined us in abstaining on this item, against his own party decision to vote in favour.
Then the budget itself is moved. Cllr Alan Waters, Executive Member for Finance, made a decent and amusing stab at justifying the budget - including some very amusing powerpoint slides and a pre-emptive attack on other budget amendments. My only feeling was that Cllr Waters spent too much time knocking the alternatives rather than saying why his budget was the best. Then came the LibDem budget amendment...
... they wanted to have a council tax rise of 2.95% and give an extra £32,000 to Visit Norwich Ltd - and to pay for it, they'd cut the wardens programme by £92,000. I have to say on first hearing this I couldn't believe our political luck. The wardens are popular, hard working and successful - the LibDems wanted to sack some of them in favour of tourism???
Cllr Cooke seemed like a man who knew his time was up and hardly flourished on his last big occassion. He put forward the amendment but did so in a quiet way, almost hoping this might take the edge off the atatcks from other parties. A shame - Cllr Cooke is, despite his party's difficulties, one of the best orators on the council. This should have been his moment to really make one last stand before standing down. It feel flat; not a disaster but without any spark. The same can't be said for his Deputy, Cllr Brian Watkins (Eaton), who led with a clenched fist in a passionate defence on VisitNorwich. Cllr Watkins has long been an advocate of a strong tourist strategy and he clearly had the bit between his teeth. However, a good speech went bad when he slipped and said the LibDems wanted to give "32 million" to VisitNorwich rather than just £32,000. Oh dear.
The LibDem amendment cut little ice with other parties; I'm afriad I couldn't sit by and watch all this go through without making a fuss. Whilst I'm sure Labour would be happy just to let the votes roll through, Cllr Ramsay accused the LibDems of "throwing good money after bad" and suggested they were writing "a blank cheque" for VisitNorwich.
I was rather less kind. I said it, "looks like a visionless effort from a leaderless party ... it has the desperate smack of a party who knows its time is up ... we're dealing with a failing organisation who don't seem to be able to fulfill their purpose, wandering lost and trying to find some measure of support (that's the LibDems, not VisitNorwich) ... perhaps this is about undercutting Labour, well I tell you they aren't going to undercut the Conservatives; we'll deliver tax cuts because we believe in tax cuts ... thousands raised, thousands spend, thousands wasted but only now do the LibDems realise that tax is too high ... no ideas, no vision, no leadership and quite frankly, no hope!"
Cue LibDem groaning and plenty of cheers; I'm told even clapping from the public gallery. The LibDems lost their amendment 7 votes to 17 with 11 abstentions; including their very own Cllr Mayhew.
Then came our amendment. We would have;
Reduce spending on Unitary by £500,000
Use £300,000 to reduce council tax
Use £200,000 to support community projects through the People's Fund
In my speech, I said that this "was not an attempt to de-rail unitary - believe me, we've tried that - ...now is the time to say that the project has gone on long enough and cost more than enough ... other districts will be paying out just £300,000 so why can't we just spend what everybody else will ... this isn't about unitary, it's about unitary without the waste, it isn't about council tax, it's about a signal that this council won't accept ever higher bills, this isn't about extra funding for community projects, it's about the best use of our limit resources."
I have to admit to not knowing quite what the opposition arguements were. Cllr Waters was so nice and charming that I totally lost what he was saying. He did use a typical Labour trick of plucking a figure out of the air and claiming we'd cut service. Errr, no. There's only 2 cuts - the unitary budget and then everyone's council tax bills. We were then told that council tax bill cuts would only benefit the middle classes. I'm sorry, does everybody else not pay council tax? Finally Cllr Waters assured us that the rise was only 3p per week anyway. Well, that's OK ... if it wasn't my 3p in the first place and I can still spend it better than the council can.
The other-Cllr Little (Green, Town Close) made an incoherant and bizarre speech of which I can remember little (no pun) other than being accused of electioneering. I'm surprised that Cllr Read could contain himself, but it took Cllr Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove) to come to my aid. I then surprised the council by revealing that I am a conservative, favour a small council and tax cuts; one mans electioneering is another man's political principle.
After our sound defeat (31 votes to 3!) Cllr Ramsay, Green Leader, clearly felt his own side had missed their chance so tried to come back to our amendment which, needless to say, I had to stop using a Point of Order. Come on, chaps, let's do this right!
In the final vote on the budget, it was left to Labour and the Conservatives as the other groups chose to sit it out. The final result was 13 votes to 3; we voted against Labour's 3.7% tax hike.
A good debate, well natured and largely good fun. We all had our say, votes were taken and I suppose the will of the city was heard. Roll on next year...
... one pleasing footnote was that during another topic, I managed to force te delightful Cllr Lubbock to storm out of the chamber. Half a dozen other councillors congratulated me afterwards, saying they had always wanted to do the same thing!!!
More tomorrow ... a friend in the galery wrote some pen portraits which I will publish.
Firstly the Leader of the Council, Cllr Morphew, moves the budget framework; that is the high level strategy direction that the budget will follow. Cllr Morphew couldn't resist turning it into a kind of two-year review of his administration; incuding battering the poor LibDems - the first of many batterings and their party must have left the chamber feeling very down indeed. Cllr Morphew set out changes to the financial regime, improvements in housing, CCTV extension ... in fact, I accuse dhim of sounding like a Stalinist Minister reeling off the tractor production figures. Outgoing LibDem Leader Cllr Hereward Cooke took an open shot at Cllr Morphew but seemed to be leaving his best fire for later. LibDem Cllr Carl Mayhew (Mile Cross) joined us in abstaining on this item, against his own party decision to vote in favour.
Then the budget itself is moved. Cllr Alan Waters, Executive Member for Finance, made a decent and amusing stab at justifying the budget - including some very amusing powerpoint slides and a pre-emptive attack on other budget amendments. My only feeling was that Cllr Waters spent too much time knocking the alternatives rather than saying why his budget was the best. Then came the LibDem budget amendment...
... they wanted to have a council tax rise of 2.95% and give an extra £32,000 to Visit Norwich Ltd - and to pay for it, they'd cut the wardens programme by £92,000. I have to say on first hearing this I couldn't believe our political luck. The wardens are popular, hard working and successful - the LibDems wanted to sack some of them in favour of tourism???
Cllr Cooke seemed like a man who knew his time was up and hardly flourished on his last big occassion. He put forward the amendment but did so in a quiet way, almost hoping this might take the edge off the atatcks from other parties. A shame - Cllr Cooke is, despite his party's difficulties, one of the best orators on the council. This should have been his moment to really make one last stand before standing down. It feel flat; not a disaster but without any spark. The same can't be said for his Deputy, Cllr Brian Watkins (Eaton), who led with a clenched fist in a passionate defence on VisitNorwich. Cllr Watkins has long been an advocate of a strong tourist strategy and he clearly had the bit between his teeth. However, a good speech went bad when he slipped and said the LibDems wanted to give "32 million" to VisitNorwich rather than just £32,000. Oh dear.
The LibDem amendment cut little ice with other parties; I'm afriad I couldn't sit by and watch all this go through without making a fuss. Whilst I'm sure Labour would be happy just to let the votes roll through, Cllr Ramsay accused the LibDems of "throwing good money after bad" and suggested they were writing "a blank cheque" for VisitNorwich.
I was rather less kind. I said it, "looks like a visionless effort from a leaderless party ... it has the desperate smack of a party who knows its time is up ... we're dealing with a failing organisation who don't seem to be able to fulfill their purpose, wandering lost and trying to find some measure of support (that's the LibDems, not VisitNorwich) ... perhaps this is about undercutting Labour, well I tell you they aren't going to undercut the Conservatives; we'll deliver tax cuts because we believe in tax cuts ... thousands raised, thousands spend, thousands wasted but only now do the LibDems realise that tax is too high ... no ideas, no vision, no leadership and quite frankly, no hope!"
Cue LibDem groaning and plenty of cheers; I'm told even clapping from the public gallery. The LibDems lost their amendment 7 votes to 17 with 11 abstentions; including their very own Cllr Mayhew.
Then came our amendment. We would have;
Reduce spending on Unitary by £500,000
Use £300,000 to reduce council tax
Use £200,000 to support community projects through the People's Fund
In my speech, I said that this "was not an attempt to de-rail unitary - believe me, we've tried that - ...now is the time to say that the project has gone on long enough and cost more than enough ... other districts will be paying out just £300,000 so why can't we just spend what everybody else will ... this isn't about unitary, it's about unitary without the waste, it isn't about council tax, it's about a signal that this council won't accept ever higher bills, this isn't about extra funding for community projects, it's about the best use of our limit resources."
I have to admit to not knowing quite what the opposition arguements were. Cllr Waters was so nice and charming that I totally lost what he was saying. He did use a typical Labour trick of plucking a figure out of the air and claiming we'd cut service. Errr, no. There's only 2 cuts - the unitary budget and then everyone's council tax bills. We were then told that council tax bill cuts would only benefit the middle classes. I'm sorry, does everybody else not pay council tax? Finally Cllr Waters assured us that the rise was only 3p per week anyway. Well, that's OK ... if it wasn't my 3p in the first place and I can still spend it better than the council can.
The other-Cllr Little (Green, Town Close) made an incoherant and bizarre speech of which I can remember little (no pun) other than being accused of electioneering. I'm surprised that Cllr Read could contain himself, but it took Cllr Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove) to come to my aid. I then surprised the council by revealing that I am a conservative, favour a small council and tax cuts; one mans electioneering is another man's political principle.
After our sound defeat (31 votes to 3!) Cllr Ramsay, Green Leader, clearly felt his own side had missed their chance so tried to come back to our amendment which, needless to say, I had to stop using a Point of Order. Come on, chaps, let's do this right!
In the final vote on the budget, it was left to Labour and the Conservatives as the other groups chose to sit it out. The final result was 13 votes to 3; we voted against Labour's 3.7% tax hike.
A good debate, well natured and largely good fun. We all had our say, votes were taken and I suppose the will of the city was heard. Roll on next year...
... one pleasing footnote was that during another topic, I managed to force te delightful Cllr Lubbock to storm out of the chamber. Half a dozen other councillors congratulated me afterwards, saying they had always wanted to do the same thing!!!
More tomorrow ... a friend in the galery wrote some pen portraits which I will publish.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Street Leaders Launch
Tonight I attended the launch of the Street Leaders initiative across the HELM area (Lower Hellesdon, Earlham, Larkman, Marlpit) in which local people act to keep an eye on environmental and law issues in their streets. They report litter, fly tipping, ASB etc. It is based on a scheme in Southwark, London, and looks really exciting. I just hope the council can kepe up with the demand that this will create. When people report issue we must, and must be seen to, act on their concerns. The local team there deserve a lot of respect for pushing this forward and I felt it was a very professional launch. I trust this bodes well for a successful scheme in HELM!
A Q&A then followed and there was plenty of robust debate. Most people wanted to know why Southwark cleaned every street at least once a week when Norwich streets are cleaned one every 8 weeks! The answer was, I'm afraid, straight out of the New Labour handbook - if we increased street cleaning we'd have to make cuts in other areas. What nonsense, and for the first time somebody spoke up to say so!
What about cuts in non-frontline services and bureaucracy for a start? And I also think this - isn't street cleaning a statutory service? Shouldn't cuts take place in services that are not compulsory? Why don't we bring the City Council back to a base budget and do what we have to do really well before going further? Or is this too complicated? I'd love to know what other people think!
A Q&A then followed and there was plenty of robust debate. Most people wanted to know why Southwark cleaned every street at least once a week when Norwich streets are cleaned one every 8 weeks! The answer was, I'm afraid, straight out of the New Labour handbook - if we increased street cleaning we'd have to make cuts in other areas. What nonsense, and for the first time somebody spoke up to say so!
What about cuts in non-frontline services and bureaucracy for a start? And I also think this - isn't street cleaning a statutory service? Shouldn't cuts take place in services that are not compulsory? Why don't we bring the City Council back to a base budget and do what we have to do really well before going further? Or is this too complicated? I'd love to know what other people think!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Brilliant or Boring? Will Gordon's last budget be his greatest deception?
The real story of this budget is the tight spending rounds that are on their way for our public services, the below inflation pay increases for public sector workers and the terrible lack of reform for schools and hospitals.
Yet brilliantly, the next few days will be dominated by Brown's greatest tax fiddle - the cutting of the basic rate by 2% to 20p in the pound whilst scrapping the 10% starter rate and raising the NI threshold. All these leads to ... absolutely no change whatsoever.
Of course, the budget is revenue neutral but will anybody notice? Some people will think its a tax cut but the media (and the opposition) aren't stupid and most people will therefore see this as the con it really is. This arguement will go on for days, and days, and days etc etc etc.
And nobody will notice what Labour - Blair and Brown - are doing to our precious public services.
Yet brilliantly, the next few days will be dominated by Brown's greatest tax fiddle - the cutting of the basic rate by 2% to 20p in the pound whilst scrapping the 10% starter rate and raising the NI threshold. All these leads to ... absolutely no change whatsoever.
Of course, the budget is revenue neutral but will anybody notice? Some people will think its a tax cut but the media (and the opposition) aren't stupid and most people will therefore see this as the con it really is. This arguement will go on for days, and days, and days etc etc etc.
And nobody will notice what Labour - Blair and Brown - are doing to our precious public services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)