Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Graham, Tom and Ian
Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle West & Gatley Learn more
What were the local issues four decades ago?
Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
What were the local issues four decades ago?
Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Stockport prepares to implement new “Osborne Tax”
by Lib Dem team on 8 December, 2015
The new Osborne Tax will add 2% to council tax bills from next April
George Osborne has announced that, to help fund social care costs, councils are expected to increase Council Tax by 2% in addition to the normal tax. This “Osborne Tax” money has to be spent on social care – it can’t be diverted for other purposes like parks or potholes.
The Government’s own figures assume that every council will take the 2% Osborne Tax and the Lib Dems have indicated that we intend to do so for Stockport.
The Osborne Tax is far from ideal. Instead of raising money through income tax centrally (which he promised not to do), he’s pushed it onto councils so the Conservatives technically keep their promise.
Raising money from Council Tax is less fair than from income tax (the poor pay more and the rich pay less). It’s also less fair for councils in poorer areas, as they can raise less money from it.
But it’s what the Chancellor has decided should happen.
The tax will see our council tax bills increase by 2%, so if you are currently paying £100 a month, the Osborne Tax would increase your payment to £102 a month.
14 Comments
This is not mandatory this is your choice. If you don’t agree with then why are you implementing it?
What are the Lib Dem policies to eliminate the deficit. Please describe how you would eliminate it not tickle it.
Mark – The LibDems plans to reduce the deficit is to spend more.
Bruce – we agree completely that more money is needed to fund social care. We disagree with the method in this case, but it’s the only one we’re being offered by the Government so we have little choice!
Mark – we would reduce the deficit more slowly than the Conservatives plan to, and so make fewer cuts to do so. We would also put more of the share of deficit reduction on taxes rather than cuts. There is no good economic justification for Osborne reducing the deficit at the speed he wants to – these are ideological cuts that will do more harm than good to our economy. We would not include interest payments on capital infrastructure in the same pot as day-to-day spending (a new wheeze Osborne’s invented which makes the deficit look worse and so forces bigger cuts on social care etc.).
Iain, you response makes no sense.
You say that you would reduce the deficit more slowly, which means:
1) The cuts are coming, it will just take longer to implement them
2) As the deficit is to come down more slowly, then the amount and length of time we have to borrow money is increased – so we end up paying more!
You state that Osborne is trying to make the deficit look worse than it is. He doesn’t need to try, take a look at this link:
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
How bad does it have to get before you accept there is a problem?
Halifax – the Dimbles ALWAYS blame everyone else for the woes of the country. Under the Dimbles my council tax has soared over the last 10 years or so. When there is an increase it is always above the national average.
One year it was over twice the national average – 3.6 as against 1.7 if I recall correctly – and Mark Hunter bragged that it was less than inflation. What a hypocrite.
Iain you state ‘We would not include interest payments on capital infrastructure in the same pot as day-to-day spending’
Isn’t that like saying I don’t need to take into account my mortgage interest payments when working out my household budget?
And as I have stated before, we currently raise as much tax (as a % of GDP) as we have ever have done in peacetime, so rising taxes will not work.
Iain
if the council stops wasting money on silly cycle schemes that cyclists don’t use even when the routes are finished ( Manchester road still not finished and traffic barriers still on hire 12 months later) perhaps we would not need to raise this extra money. But lets stop whinging raise the money and spend it more wisely and we can all enjoy the results.
Roy – the money for the cycle schemes comes from the Cycle City Ambition Grant. It’s a government grant and can’t be spent on anything else. It’s very frustrating that Highways England have held up finishing the scheme, but I understand the end might be in sight on that one.
So no, not doing the cycle schemes would not make one bit of difference to the money the council has for other things (we’d just lose the cycle money).
Iain, you say we ‘will just lose the cycle money’, which implies you feel it is better to waste it than not spend it.
By not spending it on one of the worse cycle lane ideas I have seen ( I cycle down Manchester Road every day) the Council could have instead not wasted the money and given it back to the scheme, either for better use or to be returned to government for better use.
This idea that we must spend it regardless, or lose it, is outrageous. That money is not the Council’s or even the Government’s, as Councils or Governments don’t have any of their own money, they just have what they have taken of other people, and I’d rather you didn’t waste it
Halifax – I agree on not wasting it and I’m very glad that hasn’t happened. I’m pleased that the Manchester Road cycle path is being used more and more all the time and I understand we finally have the go-ahead from Highways England to sort out the section over the motorway, which is excellent news. I’ve used it myself several times and found it works well (much better than many other cycle paths I’m used over the decades!). The aim of the scheme is to get people cycling who didn’t do so before and it’s starting to do just that.
Iain, as someone who cycles down Manchester Road every day (Mon – Fri), I can assure you it is a complete waste of mine and other tax payers’ money. Whoever thought of it and approved it should be sacked or removed from office.
As soon as I saw it being build it was obvious to me that it was a mistake – but hey, its only tax payers money being wasted
It is attempting (and failing) to solve a problem that wasn’t there. Manchester Road is far more dangerous now than it was before the ‘improvements’.
I won’t use it, and neither from my observations, will many others when cycling towards Manchester. My reasons are;
1) You have to cross the busy carriageway to get to a from it
2) There is no demarcation, so as a cyclist going into Manchester and therefore downhill, and therefore at a reasonable pace, you are mixing it with pedestrians, and cyclist coming the other way, with no one with any idea who should be where on the pavement.
I use it when travelling from Manchester to Cheadle, but join the road just before the motorway bridge, otherwise if I remain in the cycle lane, I have to stop at the approach road to Abney Hall, which isn’t great as that is a downhill section.
It is badly thought out and has made Manchester Road far more dangerous due to its narrowing to accommodate the cycle path.
You say that you are pleased that it is being used more all the time. If it was any good, all cyclist would be using it. And my observations are that very few use when travelling towards Manchester. Perhaps you can get Council staff to do a survey to judge how successful or otherwise it is
Thanks Halifax. Interestingly your comment highlights the issue and why it’s needed.
No, it’s not attempting to solve a problem that wasn’t there. The problem it’s attempting to solve is that only 2% of journeys are currently made by bike – including yours – and we need to get that up to nearer 10%. That doesn’t happen overnight, and it doesn’t happen by assuming the needs of confident existing cyclists are the same as less confident future-cyclist (they aren’t of course).
One of the big challenges we’ve always had – and I’ve often written about – is that the needs of the existing confident 20mph cyclists and the needs of the new 12-14mph cyclists are not the same. I’ve been up front in saying I don’t have a perfect solution to that.
I’ve also been clear that building up higher levels of cycling takes time. It doesn’t happen overnight anywhere, but it does happen, and off-road and quiet routes are a precondition.
Iain you say – ‘Thanks Halifax. Interestingly your comment highlights the issue and why it’s needed’
I don’t know what you mean, what comments did I make that ‘highlights the issue and why it’s needed’
And you appear to side step the point – the cycle lane is a waste of money as:
a) few cyclist use it travelling Cheadle to Manchester (for the reasons I’ve highlighted)
b) travelling Cheadle to Manchester on the road is now far more dangerous
When this ‘improvement’ claims someone’s life, or a life changing injury (which it will), will the people who supported it explain themselves.
I’m clear that the changes to Manchester Road have made it a far more dangerous road to use as a cyclist than before the changes.