There is always a gap between what the council’s income and what it spends. When there was a Lib-Dem or Labour or in joint administration there was gap between spending and income.
The responsible bit of the administration is how it plugs that gap. What are its priorities and sacred cow policies. The noise that has been made about government funding as bit of red herring. What you cut and how you raise income are the deciding factors here.
In case you didn’t know the council funding can be divided into quarters. This is approximate but roughly right, 25% is from council tax, 25% from business rate tax that is collected by the authority but is sent off to government, 25% government grant and 25% other income e.g. car parking charging or savings. The middle 50% is fixed as it is determined by formulae from the government. So you are left with raising income from council tax payers or via other income raising like profits from your leisure facilities.
Of course you can raise funds from selling assets but does not help in future crisis but can be good effective short term solution if your entire aim is keep council tax down. Or you could raise the fees on funerals, car parking, trash collection/disposal or any of the income received from the variety of run or owned council facilities. However if you sell off those assets you can not gain future profit from them. There is also borrowing or dipping into council reserves?
There is also some irony that many council services are now in the hands of the private sector in terms of Capita yet there does not appear to be a great deal of savings appearing in the cities coffers? One of the reasons why Labour opposed the wholesale privatisation is it did not reap the savings needed. In fact it is generally believed that council services are costing up to seven percent more since privatisation to ensure profit for the provider.
So please do not believe the hype in the figures being banded about it is not just about cuts or savings.
If you cut the council tax discounts for well off pensioners the council could bring back a million into the equation.
If the government had the balls, to revalue the council tax bands, as they current bandings are based on property values of 15 years ago. You could plug any gap you like and it would be proportionate with the rich paying more. However tax has become the policy that dares not speak its name. I am not sure any government is ready to face the challenge of charging the public the true cost for the services they receive from their local authority. I nearly forgot what about re-devolving the business rate to local authorities to keep…….. But the large rural authorities would loose out as city authorities by shear population and resultant business activity would benefit… It is difficult account to balance.
However I am not sure about current suggestions of less council meetings the only truly public forum left in council at which the public can hear councillors representing them . Scrutiny where councillors can contribute to the process is already had its teeth removed by lack of funding.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Orwellian speach
I am fan of Orwell and there some interesting political views in his writings. Many constituents recently have responded on the door step that can not see the difference between the parties locally or nationally.
“Your are all the same”. This view has not been helped by the expenses scandal and the more recent cult of personality placing the emphasis on the political leaders rather than the policies. I know many voters who are making their mind up on who to vote for based on the public performance, looks and public image of the party leaders.
The analogy I think of is that of “Animal Farm” scenario where the animals at the end of the revolution can not see the difference between the Napoleon (the pig revolutionary leader) and Man who the animals had rebelled against.
Orwellian imagery was conjured up for me by Cameron at the end of conference speech. Compare his privileged background (Eton, Oxford), to his zeal to change the Conservatives and cover himself in the red flag (who can believe the Tories care about those who are in need!). Is he the Napoleon character who proclaims change and working for the disempowered, a leader who has experienced the normal world (the family supported by the NHS) but then just like Napoleon is secretly making deals with Man or in Cameron’s case the market and the privileged and wealthy. Remember the Tories parties’ greatest donor is millionaire who like many of the vastly wealthy avoids much of the taxation subject to the rest of us.
Lovely article in papers about Cameron and the fact he still has shotgun licence, his past hunting experience and whether he will repeal the Hunting Legislation. Apparently the Tories will repeal this legislation. However that is not the issue really but it the Tory leader’s past, it so difficult to believe this upper class man really cares about those in society, who the government should be protecting/supporting. I know it shouldn’t be about the persons past but we now have presidential politics where the leader is all, and the policy second. So how can this leader whose whole life is full of hypocrisy stand up say he cares about the poorest in society?
And he says he wants to de-centralise government to local government an idea I would support but no government has ever done that because no central government has trusted local government to do so. If it did it would allow local government keep business rates (that goes to central govt), set what council tax was suitable and calculate local funding on local need. There no proposals for the Tories to do any these things as they are still committed to keeping council tax low as a priority with not prospect of any other measures to increase funding for local government.
Another thing if I hear another thing about debt I will scream. Yes it is important but its payback does not have to be the central theme of government. Can I point out that it was only last year that the government war (WWII) debt was paid back to the U.S. All three of the national parties have huge debt but still operate and nobody mentions that a rising economy = rising tax revenues. We as nation has lived with large debt before and will do again, what is important is how inflation and the money supply is controlled (as we live in capitalist economy).
“Your are all the same”. This view has not been helped by the expenses scandal and the more recent cult of personality placing the emphasis on the political leaders rather than the policies. I know many voters who are making their mind up on who to vote for based on the public performance, looks and public image of the party leaders.
The analogy I think of is that of “Animal Farm” scenario where the animals at the end of the revolution can not see the difference between the Napoleon (the pig revolutionary leader) and Man who the animals had rebelled against.
Orwellian imagery was conjured up for me by Cameron at the end of conference speech. Compare his privileged background (Eton, Oxford), to his zeal to change the Conservatives and cover himself in the red flag (who can believe the Tories care about those who are in need!). Is he the Napoleon character who proclaims change and working for the disempowered, a leader who has experienced the normal world (the family supported by the NHS) but then just like Napoleon is secretly making deals with Man or in Cameron’s case the market and the privileged and wealthy. Remember the Tories parties’ greatest donor is millionaire who like many of the vastly wealthy avoids much of the taxation subject to the rest of us.
Lovely article in papers about Cameron and the fact he still has shotgun licence, his past hunting experience and whether he will repeal the Hunting Legislation. Apparently the Tories will repeal this legislation. However that is not the issue really but it the Tory leader’s past, it so difficult to believe this upper class man really cares about those in society, who the government should be protecting/supporting. I know it shouldn’t be about the persons past but we now have presidential politics where the leader is all, and the policy second. So how can this leader whose whole life is full of hypocrisy stand up say he cares about the poorest in society?
And he says he wants to de-centralise government to local government an idea I would support but no government has ever done that because no central government has trusted local government to do so. If it did it would allow local government keep business rates (that goes to central govt), set what council tax was suitable and calculate local funding on local need. There no proposals for the Tories to do any these things as they are still committed to keeping council tax low as a priority with not prospect of any other measures to increase funding for local government.
Another thing if I hear another thing about debt I will scream. Yes it is important but its payback does not have to be the central theme of government. Can I point out that it was only last year that the government war (WWII) debt was paid back to the U.S. All three of the national parties have huge debt but still operate and nobody mentions that a rising economy = rising tax revenues. We as nation has lived with large debt before and will do again, what is important is how inflation and the money supply is controlled (as we live in capitalist economy).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
