Surrey's Conservative administration is acting as a lightning rod here with regards to social care funding.
I think we will be seeing a lot more of this going on with Tory led councils. They are well aware that the vote they are required to have will never get accepted but are using it as a way of highlighting the ridiculous budgetary pressures that local authorities have been put under by this and previous administrations.
Don't expect many will agree with me but shifting much of the blame for the day-to-day effects of austerity onto local government is about the only thing Cameron's cabinet did well.
Very worrying. Let's say that the vote goes the way of "no to 15% tax increase". Now what? No increase at all? Not even 1.5%? Old folk told that "we voted for 'Gerryexit' so out you go"? And who will be the loser? Probably taxpayers in another way, wondering why A&E is clogged up with frail 85-year-olds with routuine infections because they forgot their meds...
If the council is simply trying to make a point about funding this is a bad way of going about it...not to mention the cost of the referendum itself..
Can't say I'm keen on it. It will likely happen elsewhere, too. Because funding for social care is at a local council level it's not surprising that this is the decision councils face the harsh reality is that social care costs won't go away and will in all likelihood increase. If local authorities have had their budgets decreased from central government they are faced with increase Council tax or cut services. I believe a lot of social care costs are a duty of care to councils so they have to find money for everything else like emptying bins, repairing roads etc. Budgets for most councils are cut to smithereens already so there isn't a lot to cut back on any more. It's a hard choice to make but probably the only one so long as the government keeps cutting funding to local authorities. And furthermore if councils don't pick up the cost central government will have to. We will have to pay for it one way or another.
A few points: The notion that there is any actual access to county council funded social care in Surrey or many other tory controlled regions is a nauseating falsehood. The tory party is unabashed in its determination to do away with the welfare state in all its forms, not just the looking after those as can't look after themselves, through no fault of their own. For a tory party animal to suggest that the electorate has a genuine choice is shameless skulduggery. When the "referendum" inevitably opts not to pay 15% higher council tax the tories say "there you are, you heartless proles, you closed the old folks home" while laughing up their sleeves cos the cynical turds fully intend to shut them anyway. The notion that the tories would spend 15% more on public services is deliberately preposterous. Even worse is the notion it would be spent responsibly on the highlighted services. 15% on my council tax is about £350p.a. or £7 a week - less than 2 pints. I obviously realise that's more significant for some than others. If there was an atom of integrity in the ruling tory group on Surrey CC I'd vote in favour in a heartbeat just to watch the lying cynical trough-feeders get off the gravy train and actually look after the elderly, infirm, challenged and otherwise deserving.
It's about as likely as Roly learning anything about football or Latrine telling the truth about anything.
Surrey's Conservative administration is acting as a lightning rod here with regards to social care funding.
I think we will be seeing a lot more of this going on with Tory led councils. They are well aware that the vote they are required to have will never get accepted but are using it as a way of highlighting the ridiculous budgetary pressures that local authorities have been put under by this and previous administrations.
Don't expect many will agree with me but shifting much of the blame for the day-to-day effects of austerity onto local government is about the only thing Cameron's cabinet did well.
Shown in perfect fashion with Dave's letter to Oxfordshire County Council about the shutting of local libraries!
Slashing of local services will begin in earnest over the coming years. You haven't seen anything yet.
A few points: The notion that there is any actual access to county council funded social care in Surrey or many other tory controlled regions is a nauseating falsehood. The tory party is unabashed in its determination to do away with the welfare state in all its forms, not just the looking after those as can't look after themselves, through no fault of their own. For a tory party animal to suggest that the electorate has a genuine choice is shameless skulduggery. When the "referendum" inevitably opts not to pay 15% higher council tax the tories say "there you are, you heartless proles, you closed the old folks home" while laughing up their sleeves cos the cynical turds fully intend to shut them anyway. The notion that the tories would spend 15% more on public services is deliberately preposterous. Even worse is the notion it would be spent responsibly on the highlighted services. 15% on my council tax is about £350p.a. or £7 a week - less than 2 pints. I obviously realise that's more significant for some than others. If there was an atom of integrity in the ruling tory group on Surrey CC I'd vote in favour in a heartbeat just to watch the lying cynical trough-feeders get off the gravy train and actually look after the elderly, infirm, challenged and otherwise deserving.
It's about as likely as Roly learning anything about football or Latrine telling the truth about anything.
Same sort of thoughts went through my mind except there's no trust whether it's Tory/Labour/Liberal or UKIP, I would have had to check to see which party was in power.
It would need a watertight business plan spelling out exactly where the money would be spent, the improvements it would achieve and proof it had happened.
Can you imagine a company asking for money from investors on the basis the company could prove they were able to spend the money.
But, how would you feel about being asked the question in the first place?
My view is that the electorate choose people to make difficult decisions on their behalf. They should expect those individuals to throw the question back if it's a bit too difficult.
Your job as an elected councillor is to provide services and infrastructure required to support and satisfy your electorate, within a balanced budget. If you can't do that, resign. Don't just abrogate your responsibility to make decisions.
I said something along the lines in the Brexit thread 'if there was a referendum on paying more taxes or cutting public services, cutting would win'. You simply cannot trust the public to make these kinds of decisions on a rational basis for the greater good. This is basically the equivalent of mob rule, throwing the vulnerable out to be devoured by the wolves whilst you save your own skin.
But, how would you feel about being asked the question in the first place?
My view is that the electorate choose people to make difficult decisions on their behalf. They should expect those individuals to throw the question back if it's a bit too difficult.
Your job as an elected councillor is to provide services and infrastructure required to support and satisfy your electorate, within a balanced budget. If you can't do that, resign. Don't just abrogate your responsibility to make decisions.
The simple edge to this debate which used to be thrown about when I was young was something like, whilst we are paying for all these weapons, we ought to pay the whole bill for the benefit of the general population. It was about having money, and then choosing what to spend it on. I now realise things aren't that simple. I can imagine a time when all government/local government spending, from dog wardens to flood defence, to military defence to brain surgeons, is generally agreed to be necessary and generally agreed that it isn't wasted spending. So what if it isn't enough? I can imagine a time when I would have to make do with less in order to help fund the general good. In the unequal and unbalanced world we have today one can point to a lot of others who should stump up before me, be it stupidly rich people, or government projects that I feel are not needed, but what if, after all that is sorted out, it has to be me...and you too? There is a crisis of need due to our ageing population, it's nobody's fault, it is a reality, and it is a need that has to be paid for somehow. So applying that convoluted logic I would probably vote for a 15% increase in my council tax.
Surrey's Conservative administration is acting as a lightning rod here with regards to social care funding.
I think we will be seeing a lot more of this going on with Tory led councils. They are well aware that the vote they are required to have will never get accepted but are using it as a way of highlighting the ridiculous budgetary pressures that local authorities have been put under by this and previous administrations.
Don't expect many will agree with me but shifting much of the blame for the day-to-day effects of austerity onto local government is about the only thing Cameron's cabinet did well.
Shown in perfect fashion with Dave's letter to Oxfordshire County Council about the shutting of local libraries!
Slashing of local services will begin in earnest over the coming years. You haven't seen anything yet.
Just from doing that stint at crisis and talking to people that are working with the homeless all year round, the councils simply turn them away now as they don't have the resources to do anything with them. The thing I take issue with re: this cutting to the bone is that the people that really rely on and need the services are essentially jettisoned and brushed under the carpet. This is the crux of what is wrong with Britain imo. The people that really need help don't have a voice. They are faceless and nameless and the system is such that they will remain that way and it will only get worse.
If you work in public service at a local council and a homeless person comes to you and you cannot do anything to help, you can't do anything to help. This must be incredibly frustrating because on an individual level you want to help, but from a structural and resource level, you are hamstrung.
I've never known real poverty, need or dependency on the state. I hope i never have to. Those that do are an inconvenience under a Tory government. May can rattle on all she wants about a fairer society, but the disconnect between her £1000 leather trousers and what is going on in the bed sits and the provision of services for the disabled is galactical.
I'm not saying Labour had it right, what i am saying is that I cannot stand the Tory party for their approach to those that need help from the state
It will never change. In a few years the Everyman for himself mentality will be even more prevalent as certain parts of society will be left to just die off. Sounds over dramatic but that's truly what I believe will happen
- Council's are legally required to hold a referendum if they want to increase Council tax beyond a certain level. For 2017/18, District Councils are allowed 2% (or £5 per year if higher), whereas County Councils and unitary authorities such as London Boroughs are allowed an additional 3% specifically for adult social care (so 5% in total). So this isn't the Councillors abdicating their responsibility or passing the buck; it's a legal requirement. It was the coalition government which brought this in few years ago, presumably to stop Council's applying huge tax hikes to compensate for loss of spending power from government grant income. If the Council loses the referendum (which I suspect it will), it will still be able to apply an increase of up to 5%.
- Every Council has to produce a budget each year as part of the Council tax setting process. They can't just pull a number out of the air - there will be a detailed budget behind it. I haven't looked at the proposed Surrey budget in particular, but my suspicion would be that the Council is saying that it needs an extra 15% on Council tax to maintain services at their existing level - I would very much doubt that there is a plan here for extended or improving services. Remember that Council tax is actually one small part of a Council's income, so a 15% increase in Council tax does not equate to a 15% increase in total income.
- I think there needs to be a debate nationally around how we fund adult social care in this country, as costs are only going to increase as the population grows and ages. It may appear to some that there is no access to Council funded social care, but the reality is that this is where most of our Council tax goes, and there are thousands of people in every local authority area who rely upon these services. Personally I think the current means-testing system is grossly unfair as it penalises those who are responsible and put money aside for their old age, whilst those who don't save will have their care paid for. Old age happens to all of us - is it fair for anybody to expect the state to fund their care? What should the role of the family be in all this? All important questions which will need to be answered over the next few years.
But, how would you feel about being asked the question in the first place?
My view is that the electorate choose people to make difficult decisions on their behalf. They should expect those individuals to throw the question back if it's a bit too difficult.
Your job as an elected councillor is to provide services and infrastructure required to support and satisfy your electorate, within a balanced budget. If you can't do that, resign. Don't just abrogate your responsibility to make decisions.
The simple edge to this debate which used to be thrown about when I was young was something like, whilst we are paying for all these weapons, we ought to pay the whole bill for the benefit of the general population. It was about having money, and then choosing what to spend it on. I now realise things aren't that simple. I can imagine a time when all government/local government spending, from dog wardens to flood defence, to military defence to brain surgeons, is generally agreed to be necessary and generally agreed that it isn't wasted spending. So what if it isn't enough? I can imagine a time when I would have to make do with less in order to help fund the general good. In the unequal and unbalanced world we have today one can point to a lot of others who should stump up before me, be it stupidly rich people, or government projects that I feel are not needed, but what if, after all that is sorted out, it has to be me...and you too? There is a crisis of need due to our ageing population, it's nobody's fault, it is a reality, and it is a need that has to be paid for somehow. So applying that convoluted logic I would probably vote for a 15% increase in my council tax.
I would too. But, equally, I would be furious t being asked the question in the first place.
But, how would you feel about being asked the question in the first place?
My view is that the electorate choose people to make difficult decisions on their behalf. They should expect those individuals to throw the question back if it's a bit too difficult.
Your job as an elected councillor is to provide services and infrastructure required to support and satisfy your electorate, within a balanced budget. If you can't do that, resign. Don't just abrogate your responsibility to make decisions.
The simple edge to this debate which used to be thrown about when I was young was something like, whilst we are paying for all these weapons, we ought to pay the whole bill for the benefit of the general population. It was about having money, and then choosing what to spend it on. I now realise things aren't that simple. I can imagine a time when all government/local government spending, from dog wardens to flood defence, to military defence to brain surgeons, is generally agreed to be necessary and generally agreed that it isn't wasted spending. So what if it isn't enough? I can imagine a time when I would have to make do with less in order to help fund the general good. In the unequal and unbalanced world we have today one can point to a lot of others who should stump up before me, be it stupidly rich people, or government projects that I feel are not needed, but what if, after all that is sorted out, it has to be me...and you too? There is a crisis of need due to our ageing population, it's nobody's fault, it is a reality, and it is a need that has to be paid for somehow. So applying that convoluted logic I would probably vote for a 15% increase in my council tax.
I would too. But, equally, I would be furious t being asked the question in the first place.
As a couple of people have said, they don't have a choice. The referendum is legal requirement. They have to ask the question.
But, how would you feel about being asked the question in the first place?
My view is that the electorate choose people to make difficult decisions on their behalf. They should expect those individuals to throw the question back if it's a bit too difficult.
Your job as an elected councillor is to provide services and infrastructure required to support and satisfy your electorate, within a balanced budget. If you can't do that, resign. Don't just abrogate your responsibility to make decisions.
The simple edge to this debate which used to be thrown about when I was young was something like, whilst we are paying for all these weapons, we ought to pay the whole bill for the benefit of the general population. It was about having money, and then choosing what to spend it on. I now realise things aren't that simple. I can imagine a time when all government/local government spending, from dog wardens to flood defence, to military defence to brain surgeons, is generally agreed to be necessary and generally agreed that it isn't wasted spending. So what if it isn't enough? I can imagine a time when I would have to make do with less in order to help fund the general good. In the unequal and unbalanced world we have today one can point to a lot of others who should stump up before me, be it stupidly rich people, or government projects that I feel are not needed, but what if, after all that is sorted out, it has to be me...and you too? There is a crisis of need due to our ageing population, it's nobody's fault, it is a reality, and it is a need that has to be paid for somehow. So applying that convoluted logic I would probably vote for a 15% increase in my council tax.
I would too. But, equally, I would be furious t being asked the question in the first place.
As a couple of people have said, they don't have a choice. The referendum is legal requirement. They have to ask the question.
No they don't. It should be their last resort. Behind the key tasks of (1) ensuring full value for every penny of tax-payers money spent and (2) petitioning central government for increased funds.
They may have to ask the question if all other avenues have been fully explored. But have they?
My view is that they shouldn't *ask* the question, because they shouldn't *have to* ask the question.
But, how would you feel about being asked the question in the first place?
My view is that the electorate choose people to make difficult decisions on their behalf. They should expect those individuals to throw the question back if it's a bit too difficult.
Your job as an elected councillor is to provide services and infrastructure required to support and satisfy your electorate, within a balanced budget. If you can't do that, resign. Don't just abrogate your responsibility to make decisions.
The simple edge to this debate which used to be thrown about when I was young was something like, whilst we are paying for all these weapons, we ought to pay the whole bill for the benefit of the general population. It was about having money, and then choosing what to spend it on. I now realise things aren't that simple. I can imagine a time when all government/local government spending, from dog wardens to flood defence, to military defence to brain surgeons, is generally agreed to be necessary and generally agreed that it isn't wasted spending. So what if it isn't enough? I can imagine a time when I would have to make do with less in order to help fund the general good. In the unequal and unbalanced world we have today one can point to a lot of others who should stump up before me, be it stupidly rich people, or government projects that I feel are not needed, but what if, after all that is sorted out, it has to be me...and you too? There is a crisis of need due to our ageing population, it's nobody's fault, it is a reality, and it is a need that has to be paid for somehow. So applying that convoluted logic I would probably vote for a 15% increase in my council tax.
I would too. But, equally, I would be furious t being asked the question in the first place.
As a couple of people have said, they don't have a choice. The referendum is legal requirement. They have to ask the question.
No they don't. It should be their last resort. Behind the key tasks of (1) ensuring full value for every penny of tax-payers money spent and (2) petitioning central government for increased funds.
They may have to ask the question if all other avenues have been fully explored. But have they?
My view is that they shouldn't *ask* the question, because they shouldn't *have to* ask the question.
I presume that what you are saying is that you feel that they shouldn't be in a position where they need to increase council tax by more than 5%?
There will always be an element of subjectivity in such judgements of course, but I don't think it's possible to have an informed opinion without at least having looked at the Council's budget and medium term financial plan and taken into account their specific circumstances. It's easy to fall into the trap of assuming the stereotypical view of inefficiency in local government, but the reality is that most authorities have seen a huge decrease in their spending power over the past few years and have had to make difficult decisions as a result.
As for 'petitioning' for more money this is unlikely to achieve a lot - the bulk of local government funding is determined centrally and trying to fight the system directly is probably an even bigger waste of local resources. But I do think this move is interesting in that it is clearly intended of itself to highlight the issues and prompt a wider debate, which can only be a positive thing.
But, how would you feel about being asked the question in the first place?
My view is that the electorate choose people to make difficult decisions on their behalf. They should expect those individuals to throw the question back if it's a bit too difficult.
Your job as an elected councillor is to provide services and infrastructure required to support and satisfy your electorate, within a balanced budget. If you can't do that, resign. Don't just abrogate your responsibility to make decisions.
Im pretty sure council tax increases are capped at a certaib level. The onlt way to go above the level is to seek approval of the electorate
Whenever I'm in the States every other advert is a sponsored political message urging you to "vote yes on proposition 47" - I really hope we don't end up in that situation, we either elect people to govern or we don't.
Whenever I'm in the States every other advert is a sponsored political message urging you to "vote yes on proposition 47" - I really hope we don't end up in that situation, we either elect people to govern or we don't.
Comments
And, why would we expect the Council we elect to be able to make their own budget decisions?
What a great choice.
Don't expect many will agree with me but shifting much of the blame for the day-to-day effects of austerity onto local government is about the only thing Cameron's cabinet did well.
If the council is simply trying to make a point about funding this is a bad way of going about it...not to mention the cost of the referendum itself..
It's a hard choice to make but probably the only one so long as the government keeps cutting funding to local authorities.
And furthermore if councils don't pick up the cost central government will have to. We will have to pay for it one way or another.
The notion that there is any actual access to county council funded social care in Surrey or many other tory controlled regions is a nauseating falsehood.
The tory party is unabashed in its determination to do away with the welfare state in all its forms, not just the looking after those as can't look after themselves, through no fault of their own.
For a tory party animal to suggest that the electorate has a genuine choice is shameless skulduggery.
When the "referendum" inevitably opts not to pay 15% higher council tax the tories say "there you are, you heartless proles, you closed the old folks home" while laughing up their sleeves cos the cynical turds fully intend to shut them anyway.
The notion that the tories would spend 15% more on public services is deliberately preposterous. Even worse is the notion it would be spent responsibly on the highlighted services.
15% on my council tax is about £350p.a. or £7 a week - less than 2 pints. I obviously realise that's more significant for some than others.
If there was an atom of integrity in the ruling tory group on Surrey CC I'd vote in favour in a heartbeat just to watch the lying cynical trough-feeders get off the gravy train and actually look after the elderly, infirm, challenged and otherwise deserving.
It's about as likely as Roly learning anything about football or Latrine telling the truth about anything.
Lots Chief Execs will be watching the outcome of this with interest.
Slashing of local services will begin in earnest over the coming years. You haven't seen anything yet.
It would need a watertight business plan spelling out exactly where the money would be spent, the improvements it would achieve and proof it had happened.
Can you imagine a company asking for money from investors on the basis the company could prove they were able to spend the money.
My view is that the electorate choose people to make difficult decisions on their behalf. They should expect those individuals to throw the question back if it's a bit too difficult.
Your job as an elected councillor is to provide services and infrastructure required to support and satisfy your electorate, within a balanced budget. If you can't do that, resign. Don't just abrogate your responsibility to make decisions.
The money spent on the referendum would be better spent elsewhere. The council should make the decision.
It was about having money, and then choosing what to spend it on.
I now realise things aren't that simple.
I can imagine a time when all government/local government spending, from dog wardens to flood defence, to military defence to brain surgeons, is generally agreed to be necessary and generally agreed that it isn't wasted spending.
So what if it isn't enough?
I can imagine a time when I would have to make do with less in order to help fund the general good.
In the unequal and unbalanced world we have today one can point to a lot of others who should stump up before me, be it stupidly rich people, or government projects that I feel are not needed, but what if, after all that is sorted out, it has to be me...and you too?
There is a crisis of need due to our ageing population, it's nobody's fault, it is a reality, and it is a need that has to be paid for somehow. So applying that convoluted logic I would probably vote for a 15% increase in my council tax.
If you work in public service at a local council and a homeless person comes to you and you cannot do anything to help, you can't do anything to help. This must be incredibly frustrating because on an individual level you want to help, but from a structural and resource level, you are hamstrung.
I've never known real poverty, need or dependency on the state. I hope i never have to. Those that do are an inconvenience under a Tory government. May can rattle on all she wants about a fairer society, but the disconnect between her £1000 leather trousers and what is going on in the bed sits and the provision of services for the disabled is galactical.
I'm not saying Labour had it right, what i am saying is that I cannot stand the Tory party for their approach to those that need help from the state
It will never change. In a few years the Everyman for himself mentality will be even more prevalent as certain parts of society will be left to just die off. Sounds over dramatic but that's truly what I believe will happen
- Council's are legally required to hold a referendum if they want to increase Council tax beyond a certain level. For 2017/18, District Councils are allowed 2% (or £5 per year if higher), whereas County Councils and unitary authorities such as London Boroughs are allowed an additional 3% specifically for adult social care (so 5% in total). So this isn't the Councillors abdicating their responsibility or passing the buck; it's a legal requirement. It was the coalition government which brought this in few years ago, presumably to stop Council's applying huge tax hikes to compensate for loss of spending power from government grant income. If the Council loses the referendum (which I suspect it will), it will still be able to apply an increase of up to 5%.
- Every Council has to produce a budget each year as part of the Council tax setting process. They can't just pull a number out of the air - there will be a detailed budget behind it. I haven't looked at the proposed Surrey budget in particular, but my suspicion would be that the Council is saying that it needs an extra 15% on Council tax to maintain services at their existing level - I would very much doubt that there is a plan here for extended or improving services. Remember that Council tax is actually one small part of a Council's income, so a 15% increase in Council tax does not equate to a 15% increase in total income.
- I think there needs to be a debate nationally around how we fund adult social care in this country, as costs are only going to increase as the population grows and ages. It may appear to some that there is no access to Council funded social care, but the reality is that this is where most of our Council tax goes, and there are thousands of people in every local authority area who rely upon these services. Personally I think the current means-testing system is grossly unfair as it penalises those who are responsible and put money aside for their old age, whilst those who don't save will have their care paid for. Old age happens to all of us - is it fair for anybody to expect the state to fund their care? What should the role of the family be in all this? All important questions which will need to be answered over the next few years.
They may have to ask the question if all other avenues have been fully explored. But have they?
My view is that they shouldn't *ask* the question, because they shouldn't *have to* ask the question.
There will always be an element of subjectivity in such judgements of course, but I don't think it's possible to have an informed opinion without at least having looked at the Council's budget and medium term financial plan and taken into account their specific circumstances. It's easy to fall into the trap of assuming the stereotypical view of inefficiency in local government, but the reality is that most authorities have seen a huge decrease in their spending power over the past few years and have had to make difficult decisions as a result.
As for 'petitioning' for more money this is unlikely to achieve a lot - the bulk of local government funding is determined centrally and trying to fight the system directly is probably an even bigger waste of local resources. But I do think this move is interesting in that it is clearly intended of itself to highlight the issues and prompt a wider debate, which can only be a positive thing.