Fury over ‘insulting’ council tax increase (From Bury Times)
When news happens, text BONEWS and your photos to 80360 or phone 01204 537274
Fury over ‘insulting’ council tax increase
11:43am Thursday 28th February 2013 in News
OPPOSITION parties have accused Bury’s ruling Labour group of delivering an “insult” to local people by approving an inflation-busting council tax rise.
Bury Council had put forward a 3.5 per cent increase for the forthcoming financial year but this did not include rises in the police and fire service precepts which brings the overall increase in the council tax bill to 3.7 per cent.
At last Wednesday’s annual budget meeting, the Conservatives and Lib Dem groups argued that the council tax should be frozen and the Tories went one step further in its defeated amendment by calling for a £30 “cashback scheme” for the over-65s.
Cllr Tony Isherwood, executive member for finance and resources, said: “We have done our very best to protect frontline services but we are getting to the point when such savage cuts cannot be met from efficiencies.”
The rise will generate an extra £1.6 million which Labour say will go some way towards addressing the risks in the 2013/14 budget and help to offset part of the Government’s 2014/15 grant cuts. Council leader Mike Connolly added: “We take absolute no pleasure in proposing a council tax rise but without it we would be facing devastating cuts in 2014/15 which would affect the most vital services.”
The meeting also agreed council house rents will rise by an average of 4.1 per cent.
Councillors approved cuts of £9.871 million for 2013-14, of which £5.226 million will be achieved from internal efficiencies but overall the measures will hit certain services and also involve some job losses.
But Bury Council bowed to public pressure by deciding not to totally scrap its ranger service. A sum of £50,000 is being set aside to fund two of the existing eight posts to help retain a ranger presence and to further develop the volunteer service.
The public consultation will also see the authority make £150,000 available to retain the township cleansing teams at their current levels.
But the savings approved for 2013-14 include: l £250,000 reduction in funding for children’s centres l £20,000 by reviewing the range of equipment provided to disabled individuals in line with national guidelines l £100,000 by a review of all services and systems within Adult Care Services l £80,000 through a review of carers support programmes l £150,000 in savings from home to schools transport and promoting independent travel options l £104,000 through the loss of three social care posts.
Other plans embrace reduced highways maintenance and cutting pool opening hours at quiet times, reducing parking refunds, savings from the library service totalling £150,000, self management of outdoor sports facilities and allotments, no maintenance of football pitches and reduced grounds maintenance.
Additional car parking charges are also planned.
Cllr Iain Gartside, leader of Bury’s Conservative group, said: “If our budget amendment had been supported by Labour, then many frontline services would have been saved.
“The final insult came when they announced an increase in everyone’s council tax of 3.7 per cent, including police and fire precepts.”
Bury’s Lib-Dem group leader Cllr Tim Pickstone said the “inflation-busting” council tax rise was “an insult to local people” who were already struggling financially.
He added: “We would have found savings from management costs and by working cheaper and jointly with other councils to keep the tax rise at zero.”
Comments(33)
JayBob
says...
7:21pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Will Bury Council offer this referendum? After all we only have just over a month before the next billing period starts.
JayBob
says...
7:27pm Thu 28 Feb 13
It's okay for the council to impose these rises but do we all get pay rises to cover these inflation busting rises?
Babbar Divino
says...
7:34pm Thu 28 Feb 13
.
The answer is that the results of both referendums are known AND the result is not the correct one.
.
Both these decisions are too important for referendums not to mention the actual cost of holding one.
JayBob
says...
8:56pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Babbar Divino wrote:It seems that the majority of councils are increasing their taxes by an overall average of 1.2%.
What's the point in holding a referendum when you know what the outcome will be which is similar to why doesn't "a" government have a referendum on capital punishment?
.
The answer is that the results of both referendums are known AND the result is not the correct one.
.
Both these decisions are too important for referendums not to mention the actual cost of holding one.
The councils website does not say whether or not there will be this elusive referendum, but only states the coming rises compared to last year.
As the previous poster says, the result is already known and the result is definitely not the correct one. Where does this leave the residents of Bury if the council reject the governments intention to let the people have the decision on the rises? The information is quite clear on the government website for all to see, does Bury Council think that we do not have any interest in the news or current affairs?
steveman
says...
9:24am Fri 1 Mar 13
So you say a referendum by the people is not democratic-
?
Then why hold any election-
One could more or less predict the outcome of say an election in Moss Side- it certainly would not be Tory or an election in Mere it would not be Labour-
JayBob
says...
3:01pm Fri 1 Mar 13
And as such there is to be no referendum on the matter.
steveman
says...
3:12pm Fri 1 Mar 13
Now I am totally confused- and maybe thats how the council want me to be-
The rates are the rates.
I look at my last bill and yes fire and police show separate toBury council But the total reads Council tax for period ****- ie- total COUNCIL TAX.
sense2
says...
3:17pm Fri 1 Mar 13
JayBob
says...
5:19pm Fri 1 Mar 13
steveman wrote:I agree totally. The bottom line is that the bill has risen by 3.7%, not 0.16% and a bit more for the other services. All I'm interested in is how much in total, not the breakdown and placing the blame at other services.
@JayBob says..
Now I am totally confused- and maybe thats how the council want me to be-
The rates are the rates.
I look at my last bill and yes fire and police show separate toBury council But the total reads Council tax for period ****- ie- total COUNCIL TAX.
The council are adamant that the rise is in accordance with the localism act 2011 and there is no need for the referendum because the actual rise is only 0.16%. Totally bonkers but that's Bury Council for you.
steveman
says...
5:58pm Fri 1 Mar 13
So once again the councillors take their residence for idiots- Its just a shame that comes voting time- there are not sufficient who will make a protest vote and elect a council of the "Loony" party or such.
They have it sewn up between them.
Babbar Divino
says...
8:26pm Fri 1 Mar 13
steveman wrote:No Steveman I'm saying is that there won't be a referendum because the council know what the outcome will be.
@Babbar Divino says...
So you say a referendum by the people is not democratic-
?
Then why hold any election-
One could more or less predict the outcome of say an election in Moss Side- it certainly would not be Tory or an election in Mere it would not be Labour-
Babbar Divino
says...
8:37pm Fri 1 Mar 13
sense2 wrote:I'll second that. Let people who know how to run businesses provide the services, cut out all the perks and get these workers being productive. Change the "job for life" mentality and introduce real performance assessments where if you don't come up to scratch you're out.
Private business needs to be bought in to run all council services and departments.You would quickly find better service at far reduced cost.Also the pension scheme to pay what someone working in a similiar job in the private sector would get instead of the grossly inflated amounts paid now that account for a fair chunk of the council tax.Until measures like these are adopted people will continue to be fleeced.
Rubish
says...
9:56pm Fri 1 Mar 13
steveman
says...
11:15am Sat 2 Mar 13
Not the need of the councillors.
Rubish
says...
5:55pm Sat 2 Mar 13
steveman
says...
6:07pm Sat 2 Mar 13
Every secretary needs a secretary-
The other thing is- The town hall has a wonderful committee room-There is absolutely no need to hold seminars or any other meeting at outside venues.
A small issue but add up all the small ones and I wonder how much can be saved.
pablozabaleta
says...
3:23pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Unfortunately that’s where my sympathies with other commenters ends. I think some opinions are wrong, and I know that some things stated as facts are wrong:
Sense2: You call for privatisation of Council services. This would potentially save money, but the services would be taken out of public control, profits would be made from us all and given to shareholders, and evidence elsewhere suggests that quality does not improve. You also mention the pension scheme but you are wrong about it. Factually wrong. The scheme is NOT largely paid from Council Tax. Staff contribute from their pay-packets, and whilst it’s true that the Council does too the money is then invested centrally (i.e. not by Bury Council) and the fund is also managed centrally. It’s true that it’s a final salary scheme but if you think that low-paid Council workers suddenly become rich in retirement you are very wrong. Someone on an average wage who works for the Council for 20 years, paying into a pension that whole time, would get a pension of about £5k per year.
It might be fun to shout about rich public sector pensioners but they are very very few and far between, normally those who have worked at the top of Councils for several decades. And having run large Councils and contributed to their pension, do they not deserve one? In fact, do we not all deserve a good pension? Your anger would be better directed at those who’ve stolen our money (the rich bankers) than the Council workers.
Steveman – If you think that Councillors have it sewn up between them, why not stand to beat them? You think that consistent cuts are some kind of conspiracy from a cabal of Councillors, but again this is fantasy. For one thing, have you seen our Councillors? International Super Criminals they are not. Most couldn’t out-wit a high street lawyer. And most certainly can’t outwit their Chief Officers. The reason there are consistent cuts is sadly far more boring – because there’s no more money.
Rubish – What you say about top pay is simply untrue. There are fewer than half a dozen Council officers on £100k a year or more. That’s a lot to earn, sure, but the Council has a budget of £300m of public money. It’s the size of a FTSE250 company. The people who run it (and employ 5000 staff) command big salaries. Heads of Department are probably on £50-60k but to claim that there are loads is ridiculous and wrong. Perhaps 20 in all. But think of all te services the Council provides – roads, libraries, trees and parks, social care, childrens, legal, council tax, housing, etc etc etc. And they run complex services. How much do you want to pay them? And if they had their wages halved do you think they’d stick around?
steveman
says...
3:32pm Tue 5 Mar 13
It said if wages were to drop the workforce would go else where- Where?
Lets see when the new details of costs come out- how much is put down to "Miscellaneous costs"-
Babbar Divino
says...
6:18pm Tue 5 Mar 13
ke steveman I don't mind that council is run by private or public companies but if public then people must be made accountable for their performance from the top to the bottom. If people don't perform, non of this counselling claptrap, if you can't come up to scratch then you're out. Are those at the top given goals? I'm sure they are, but if they don't reach those goals are they out? You say there are only a few on £100k a year or more. Yes for a £300m concern that's probably not a lot but, as in all aspects of life, you pay for what you get. Pay someone £300,000 a year but if they achieve extra savings of £500,000 a year you are up already. Keep it public if need be but get some professionalism in there.
steveman
says...
7:13pm Tue 5 Mar 13
I agree that those that fail should go- but they dont-do they!
I recall a few years ago we were sent a questionnaire from the council as to what we thought of the way our roads and pavements were being looked after- Other than those "Outside ones door" who would be going around to check? So I asked under the F.0f.Info act how much this little survey cost- £12000- to achieve what? I ask you.
OK its just a spit in the ocean- but as I have said add up all the spits....
And again how many "Junkets" have gone on in hotels - within and outside of Bury- When , as I said, we have one great centre in the town hall- and I am sure there is a "Coffee machine available-
Rubish
says...
10:37am Wed 6 Mar 13
Buryite1
says...
6:06pm Wed 6 Mar 13
steveman wrote:steveman - you will certainly care when there is no public accountability when bins are not collected for weeks on end! Do you seriously think that 'for profit' private organizations will give you value for money and a good service? Can you name me any major privatized company who has managed to do this? I do agree that if wages were to drop - as they have been doing for years - that people would have nowhere to go.
First of all I dont care whether the services are in public or private hands- I care about value for money.
It said if wages were to drop the workforce would go else where- Where?
Lets see when the new details of costs come out- how much is put down to "Miscellaneous costs"-
Buryite1
says...
6:10pm Wed 6 Mar 13
pablozabaleta wrote:Thank you. A well informed post.
The message about a referendum is, I’m afraid, a case of Westminster MPs wanting to appear tough. It’s true that such a referendum will only come about if the Council element of the rise is above the necessary level. In Bury’s case it is not. So there won’t be a referendum. This doesn’t seem right, does it? But the blame lies with Eric Pickles. In order to have given Bury residents a 0% rise, the Council would have had to CUT its own budget to allow for the Police/Fire precepts rising.
Unfortunately that’s where my sympathies with other commenters ends. I think some opinions are wrong, and I know that some things stated as facts are wrong:
Sense2: You call for privatisation of Council services. This would potentially save money, but the services would be taken out of public control, profits would be made from us all and given to shareholders, and evidence elsewhere suggests that quality does not improve. You also mention the pension scheme but you are wrong about it. Factually wrong. The scheme is NOT largely paid from Council Tax. Staff contribute from their pay-packets, and whilst it’s true that the Council does too the money is then invested centrally (i.e. not by Bury Council) and the fund is also managed centrally. It’s true that it’s a final salary scheme but if you think that low-paid Council workers suddenly become rich in retirement you are very wrong. Someone on an average wage who works for the Council for 20 years, paying into a pension that whole time, would get a pension of about £5k per year.
It might be fun to shout about rich public sector pensioners but they are very very few and far between, normally those who have worked at the top of Councils for several decades. And having run large Councils and contributed to their pension, do they not deserve one? In fact, do we not all deserve a good pension? Your anger would be better directed at those who’ve stolen our money (the rich bankers) than the Council workers.
Steveman – If you think that Councillors have it sewn up between them, why not stand to beat them? You think that consistent cuts are some kind of conspiracy from a cabal of Councillors, but again this is fantasy. For one thing, have you seen our Councillors? International Super Criminals they are not. Most couldn’t out-wit a high street lawyer. And most certainly can’t outwit their Chief Officers. The reason there are consistent cuts is sadly far more boring – because there’s no more money.
Rubish – What you say about top pay is simply untrue. There are fewer than half a dozen Council officers on £100k a year or more. That’s a lot to earn, sure, but the Council has a budget of £300m of public money. It’s the size of a FTSE250 company. The people who run it (and employ 5000 staff) command big salaries. Heads of Department are probably on £50-60k but to claim that there are loads is ridiculous and wrong. Perhaps 20 in all. But think of all te services the Council provides – roads, libraries, trees and parks, social care, childrens, legal, council tax, housing, etc etc etc. And they run complex services. How much do you want to pay them? And if they had their wages halved do you think they’d stick around?
ihatelabour
says...
6:58pm Wed 6 Mar 13
steveman
says...
8:21pm Wed 6 Mar 13
6:06pm Wed 6 Mar 13
You make assumptions based on your political agenda.
Whilst there are certainly private companies that are not fit for purpose so there are public centre managers who are likewise-
What we need are leaders who would be able to conduct contracts so that the contractor had to give a service or thrown out on his ear-
I recall Alan Sugar being taken on in the Labour government- The first thing he found out that Lap Tops that he could obtain for £350 were being bought by civil servants for £1500.
Some how Sir Alan and his words of wisdom disappeared of the screen!
Thats the point.
Buryite1
says...
8:57pm Wed 6 Mar 13
steveman wrote:No steveman, I make my assumptions based on facts, having worked within local government for 25 years. I'm not interested in pushing any political agenda, for me the so called 'big 3' are as useless and divisive as one another. And I'm not saying 'public sector good/private sector bad', having also worked in the private sector. What we need are real leaders in both sectors.
Buryite1 says...
6:06pm Wed 6 Mar 13
You make assumptions based on your political agenda.
Whilst there are certainly private companies that are not fit for purpose so there are public centre managers who are likewise-
What we need are leaders who would be able to conduct contracts so that the contractor had to give a service or thrown out on his ear-
I recall Alan Sugar being taken on in the Labour government- The first thing he found out that Lap Tops that he could obtain for £350 were being bought by civil servants for £1500.
Some how Sir Alan and his words of wisdom disappeared of the screen!
Thats the point.
ADB
says...
9:24pm Wed 6 Mar 13
uk/index.aspx?articl
eid=3819
Todat
steveman
says...
10:53pm Wed 6 Mar 13
I gathered you had- and know doubt the one you support "pablozabaleta" as well-
That however fails to convince me of the sincerity of your words.
I to have given facts- They unfortunately contradict yours.
Buryite1
says...
10:28am Thu 7 Mar 13
steveman wrote:Well, what more can I say? I'm telling it 'as it is' from years of personal experience as doubtless you seem to be. That doesn't make me 'wrong' because I contradict you. The stark fact remains that public services as we know them will cease to exist in a few years' time - to the detriment of local communities, and we will not be left with a better system. Just because I worked within local government doesn't make me a Labour politico.
@Buryite1 says..
I gathered you had- and know doubt the one you support "pablozabaleta" as well-
That however fails to convince me of the sincerity of your words.
I to have given facts- They unfortunately contradict yours.
steveman
says...
7:18pm Fri 8 Mar 13
I care about waste and inefficiency-
Many years ago I worked for a private contractor to a nationalised industry-
I saw the waste.
My company took over an operation with twenty men that the Industry had been operating with 54. Its just one example.
I made sure that our personnel joined the appropriate union and as their salaries were 4X that of their counterparts we had no complaints.
JayBob
says...
5:39pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Seeing as some lying nobody at the council offices at Whittaker street claimed that the councils rise is only 0.16%, who is telling the truth?
This above 2% rise goes against the Governments own Localism Act which is freely available for anyone to read.
steveman
says...
5:48pm Mon 18 Mar 13
I actually phoned the council over it- They have that many queries about it the operator has a typed answer to wit she attempted to read out- I stopped her in mid stream- And commented It is in the same vain as Cameron promising a referendum on the EU constitution- They changed the name and hence no need for a referendum- She laughed-
So the council found a loop hole by splitting the tax into component parts and thus it ended up at 0.16%.
I just hope that the councillors and their aides make use of the wonderful conference room and ban the use of having meetings in hotels at our expense.
That would at least show there is no nepotism.
steveman says...
5:45pm Thu 28 Feb 13
I was under the impression that any increase in council tax 2% and above had first to be approved by a referendum of the people.
Is this mandatory or not?
Are the councillors breaking the law?