Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle West & Gatley Learn more
by Lib Dem team on 27 February, 2010
Here’s the official announcement on Stockport’s Council Tax. Because of rising costs and the small grant we get from central government, millions have been cut from spending to keep the rise this low – I’m very happy to go into more detail about exactly what’s changed, and any other details (some of which I’ll try to post over the next few days anyway).
My personal feeling is that we’ve got the balance about right. We’ve cut spending but protected services in this budget. The Conservatives are arguing for big cuts in services too (15-20% over some years – equivalent to hundreds of job losses). I’d prefer to pay a few pence extra a week to secure the important services.
At the Budget Council meeting on 25 February, Stockport Council set its budget for the financial year 2010-11 and a Band D Council Tax of £1,362.98 for Council services. This represents a 3.25% increase in the Council-controlled element of the Council Tax or an extra 83p per week for a Band D household.
When taking account of the Greater Manchester Police and Fire and Rescue precepts, which the Council does not set but has to collect, the overall Band D Council Tax is £1,559.96, an increase of 3.6% or an extra 91p per week for a Band D household.
The overall Band D Council Tax for the Offerton Park Parish area is £1,626.70. This is because of the precept of set by the Parish Council which results in an addition of £66.74 to the Council Tax.
The Council Tax charges in 2010-11 are:-
|
|
Council Area |
Offerton Park Parish |
|
Band A |
£1,039.97 |
£1,084.46 |
|
Band B |
£1,213.31 |
£1,265.21 |
|
Band C |
£1,386.63 |
£1,445.95 |
|
Band D |
£1,559.96 |
£1,626.70 |
|
Band E |
£1,906.61 |
£1,988.18 |
|
Band F |
£2,253.28 |
£2,349.68 |
|
Band G |
£2,599.93 |
£2,711.16 |
|
Band H |
£3,119.92 |
£3,253.39 |
7 Comments
Iain I know how proud the Lib Dems are about this budget but I was at the budget meeting the other night and it simply doesn’t wash with me and I am certain it will not wash with the people of Stockport.
The sheer arrogance with which your Lib Dem group conducted itself was appalling. The opposition councillors were told that they had provided nothing constructive to the budget after failing to put forward their own when last year your leader told them any amendments would be voted down.
More over, you are not really protecting services Iain. You are simply putting off the cuts until next year when you can blame it all on central government. There has been “service redesign” (whatever that means) and unsupported borrowing to finance the budget when cuts could be made to marketing and publicity which churns out blatant propaganda and funds your Council’s self promoting agenda.
The behaviour of the Executive Member for Finance was also disappointing. I recall one occasion when she behaved extraordinarily childishly towards Councillor Bailey which was totally inappropriate.
You’ve trotted out the opposition lines well, Oliver.
I notice you didn’t mention the lives saved by the “Kill the Chill” campaign – all part of that marketing budget.
You and I both have our biases – it would be great to get more people to these meetings to see it for themselves.
Iain, I take you to be an intelligent man and as such you must know what a false dichotomy is. You have taken my saying cuts to marketing are needed to mean that I am saying we should not have a marketing budget. That is a flawed logic on your part.
All I am saying is to CUT marketing not abolish it completely. One example of this could be to scrap the Civic Review newspaper which is essentially a taxpayer funded rag to provide Executive Councillors with a platform for self promotion, which moreover is delivered to Disley for some bizarre reason?!
And who says I have my biases, Iain? I am merely an impartial and interested member of the public. But you are right, it would be better to get more people along to those meetings although Thursday nights’ was not a good advert for local politics.
Hi Oliver,
There’s certainly an argument for cutting the civic review, but surely it is valuable. The Council provides 600 services, many of which people need to know about in order to benefit from them. The Civic Review has a lot of information about those services, so surely we’d need some alternative way to get that message to people.
Obviously that’s more of an issue for the people who make more use of Council services: the poorer members of our society, older people and so on. I can’t help thinking getting rid of the Civic Review would hurt those people the most.
And if you geuninely believe yourself to be unbiased, I of course accept that.
Of course,Iain, I have my opinions. I thought you were alluding to something more complex when you brought up “our biases”.
The problem is here that the Civic Review is not simply there to inform. It is politically motivated it promotes the Council first and its services second. The issue with this of course is that Executive Councillors are still elected representatives and party politicians but use taxpayers money for self-promotion. You do not, for instance, see Andy Burnham on NHS information leaflets or Ed Balls on Children and Schools information. IF that was to be the purpose of the Civic Review then there is some argument for it. This is not the case and it is only one but a significant area where cuts could and ought to be made.
Oliver – as far as I know, the Civic Review is very much in line with what other councils, run by all parties, puts out to communicate with voters.
And, yes, of course things from national government features the ministers – it happens all the time.
i could not agree more.the Civic Review is mainly political propoganda and should be cut along with many other items.Why do we spend money on cycle lanes that are impossible to cycle in due to parked cars? Just one example of waste.I’am sure there are many more.