Budget debate - more reflections

I have already commented on the blinkered approach adopted by much of the opposition to the budget setting process. In this budget we were required to find savings of £10.4M from our revenue budget. The main opposition groups proposed an amendment which reinstated £0.1M of this sum. This meant that they were not seeking to reverse or amend £10.3M of our proposals. In the circumstances I would call it more tinkering than major surgery. In the circumstances it was a little bizarre for a Labour councillor to describe this as "an alternative budget". No I don't think so. When their strange mishmash of an amendment was rejected they then voted against the budget even though they has effectively supported the vast majority of it. How strange.

A good reason not to compromise!

I thought that I would leave it a few days before giving my reflections on last Thursday's budget debate - all 4 + hours of it! I remain bemused about the stance of our opposition groups. In previous years, as we have delivered many millions of pounds of savings, my challenge to them has been to propose any changes they wanted so long as they identified a corresponding saving for every pound of additional spending they suggested. The response was to oppose and vote against our budget without making any alternatives. This year their moment had come. When we finished our proposals and decided we could deliver them whilst limiting the council tax increase to 1.75% it was always likely that we faced opposition proposals to increase by the maximum and in doing so they gave themselves a sum of about £175k to spend without having to identify corresponding savings. I was expecting a populist menu of enticing suggestions. Perhaps they would reinstate the air show, or reintroduce bus subsidies, or increase spending on road maintenance. But no they managed to limit themselves to primarily reinstating a number of reasonable budget cuts and with no attempt to deliver items on which they have campaigned. This package was signed by the leaders of all 3 opposition leaders and represented a compromise of their priorities so they told us. Rather than a compromise it was a wasted opportunity to be imaginative and to set out a reasonable argument for driving up council tax higher than was needed.

City Deal moves forward

Probably the most exciting news of the week was that we have been successful with our initial bid to be one of the new City Deals. Originally 8 of the largest cities in the country were offered deals - being an agreement with central government to release certain powers and/or funding to help regeneration. Last autumn we were invited to bid to participate in the second wave along with 19 other cities and towns. It was good to receive the approach and we are the only bid in our South East LEP. The bid is in 2 elements. Firstly a bespoke section, crafted by Southend Council and aimed to address a particular issue in the town which we perceive is limiting economic regeneration. If this element works then we are also able to access the Core Package which will be common to the successful bids and will enable us to access a more generic range of powers which will also roll out across south Essex. So this is a big deal for us and our immediate neighbours. Our bespoke deal involves improving CPO powers to enable us to identify specific sites acting as a block to regeneration with the council borrowing funds to develop the relevant sites which will then be funded by us retaining the business rate increased income which the scheme creates. It costs central Government nothing and let's us clear some log jams. If it works it will also be scheme which could roll out in other areas where regeneration is limited by tight urban boundaries. We are now moving to flesh out the details. It is not only a very exciting project but the fact that we are being given the opportunity to participate demonstrates the faith central government has in our ability to deliver.

Labour's latest tax policy - another wrong turn

I was interested to see the leader in today's Independent supporting my own view on the merit of the latest income tax initiative announced by Labour which is described as "... A highly complicated and largely ineffective 10p tax band". As the paper suggests "an altogether better way to ease the burden on the least well off is to take more of them out of tax altogether." it hardly seems rocket science that to create a fair tax system which is difficult to avoid needs an approach which is based on simplicity rather than the over complex tapestry of measures created by the last government which was difficult to understand, complex and left gaps a plenty for those keen to avoid or evade their tax liability. The current government is trying to address this but it would appear that Ed Miliband has still to learn the lesson of recent history.

The jammy dodger turns sour!

It is always a pleasure to know that opposition members are seeking to broaden their horizons and knowledge by reading my blog entries however I take considerable exception when they then subsequently misquote me and rarely has there been such a misguided, inaccurate and offensive misquote as recently made by new Labour Councillor Ware-Lane (see previous jammy dodger post).

Referring to my recent blog "A tale of two cycle paths", which sought to highlight the difference between Cll Steve Aylen's imaginary and tree destructive cycle path route through Belfairs and the actual suggested route, Cllr Ware-Lane suggested that I was making an offensive reference to Cllr Aylen. If I want to insult someone then I am more than capable of doing so without the assistance of Cllr Ware-Lane or anybody else, and if I do so I will ensure that the language I use is clear and not capable of misinterpretation. To try to suggest that the blog meant something that it did not say and was based on an intent of which there was no evidence or factual basis is simply not acceptable. It is insulting to Cllr Aylen and me and I await a clear and unequivocal withdrawal and apology.

A tale of 2 cycle paths!

I was surprised to read a letter in today's Echo suggesting that Cllr Steve Aylen had warned a local group that the planned extension of the Prittlebrook Green Way through Belfairs was going to follow a route which would result in the removal of "hundreds of majestic old trees". The reason for my surprise is that no route has been agreed and to suggest that anybody would advocate and agree such a route is ridiculous. My surprise was heightened in that today was the first of 2 meetings arranged at Belfairs for officers and local ward members to discuss the options available and to try to agree on a preferred route - both Councillor Aylen and I were in attendance. A preferred route was agreed by all present (including Steve and me) which would not require the removal of any trees. Steve has been peddling this scare story for years without any proper foundation in fact so perhaps he will now concede that any concern he has caused is unfounded.

A sense of denial!

I was greatly entertained to read a recent letter in the press from one of my Labour council colleagues suggesting that I was trying to in some way distance myself from the efforts of the coalition government to reduce the national deficit. Let me make clear that I fully support the need to get our economy back under control and congratulate the government for having the courage to take difficult and unpopular decisions for the common good. This does not mean that I agree with every specific element of the government's approach to the funding of local government - it would be bizarre of me to do so and I will continue to speak out when I believe it is in the best interests of the town. However that does not undermine my support for the underlying policy of financial responsibility. What I find distasteful is the clamour of Labour council members who seem to believe that the imposition of the austerity measures is an aspiration rather than a necessity and who try to pretend that the current challenge is not greater than it would otherwise be as a direct result of the financial mismanagement of their party colleagues who believed that having put "an end to boom and bust" allowed them to spend without provision for the fallow times, waste our assets (remember the sale of gold at a ridiculously low price) and then show such glee that they did not have to clear up the mess (the note from the treasury minister scoffing that the money had all gone!). If anybody is in denial of what is going on in Westminster it is not me and my party colleagues but those who suggest that you can solve a deficit by failing to reign back expenditure and further borrowing and who then have refuse to take responsibility for the contribution of their own party in creating the current challenge.