Today I was at a Scrutiny and Audit Committee meeting where it was clear that over £400,000 of this years budget cuts would not be achieved ... And because some of this was primary school closures with the saving in futures years being over £2 million next year and a further £1 million in subsequent years, the consequences for future years are significant. Apart from the lack of a robust educational case for the planned closures, the stopper was the Scottish Government deciding that no rural primaries would be allowed to close.
Now John Swinney is saying that councils will again not be allowed to raise council tax ...
With the Council Tax freeze, councillors were left to decide what to cut. When ministers decided that some areas for saving were off limits, they then directed the cuts to other areas. And now the cuts will continue deeper than ever.
When I first stood a friend said "remember, Debra, that councils really can only do what government tells them to do and then it is compulsory'. She was only a quarter joking - the freedom to do things for the benefit of the citizen has always been limited.
Now the room to manoeuvre is being limited for as much as the next 5 years. It's not an attractive prospect for Councillors doing little more than decide where the axe shall fall. Fred Macauley on Radio Scotland this morning joked that perhaps the current 32 councils should be merged into one. If the Scottish Government does not increase the independence of councils both in terms of what they are allowed to do and how they raise the funds to do it, then maybe Fred is right.
Showing posts with label tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax. Show all posts
Budget decisions - the very bad news
Today the LibDem/Tory administration of Aberdeenshire Council, with the support of the SNP supposed opposition decided to go ahead with some £27m of cuts.
Now we know that we shall have to make cuts that are of that extent. But looking at the proposed package of cuts the Democratic Independent Group had some serious reservations. While recognising the necessity of officers continuing to work on cuts (you can't make large scale redundancies in a matter of weeks - the council needs to start seeking volunteers and identifying and notifying "at risk posts"), we did not want to make some of the cuts at this stage.
For a sample of cuts agreed to today see the P&J
One oddity was that many councillors went into the Council Chamber believing that we were being asked to let the process start rather than finally decide. The DIGs have checked and we were careful to say that we only agreed to the process starting. The SNP had some detailed comments but clearly were not expecting final decisions to be made today. However, most of them voted with the LibDem/Tory administration (a few abstained) - so in my book they bear equal responsibility for the cuts.
To be fair the LibDem/Tory administration said they took on board some of the SNP comments. But as there was no formal amendment from the SNP, and no formal amendment of the administration motion, it is a mystery to me what has been agreed. I am pretty certain however that the DIGs comments will not be "taken on board".
Now we know that we shall have to make cuts that are of that extent. But looking at the proposed package of cuts the Democratic Independent Group had some serious reservations. While recognising the necessity of officers continuing to work on cuts (you can't make large scale redundancies in a matter of weeks - the council needs to start seeking volunteers and identifying and notifying "at risk posts"), we did not want to make some of the cuts at this stage.
For a sample of cuts agreed to today see the P&J
One oddity was that many councillors went into the Council Chamber believing that we were being asked to let the process start rather than finally decide. The DIGs have checked and we were careful to say that we only agreed to the process starting. The SNP had some detailed comments but clearly were not expecting final decisions to be made today. However, most of them voted with the LibDem/Tory administration (a few abstained) - so in my book they bear equal responsibility for the cuts.
To be fair the LibDem/Tory administration said they took on board some of the SNP comments. But as there was no formal amendment from the SNP, and no formal amendment of the administration motion, it is a mystery to me what has been agreed. I am pretty certain however that the DIGs comments will not be "taken on board".
Devil and the Deep Blue Sea
Aberdeenshire Council today decided to meekly accept John Swinney's 2.6% cut in grant - and promised not to raise Council Tax.
They were forced into this position by the threat that if they raised council tax by even the smallest amount, the grant would be cut by 6.4% - leaving an even greater shortfall in resources.
The choice was not a real choice. The devil of a cut ... or the deep blue sea.
I worry about a government who argues for greater powers for Scotland but imposes straight-jackets on local government. Can't they see the inconsistency?
This continuing freeze is populist short term nonsense. Professor David Bell is right - there is no sense in an effective cut in property taxes which mainly benefit middle incomes when the poorest suffer most from council cuts.
They were forced into this position by the threat that if they raised council tax by even the smallest amount, the grant would be cut by 6.4% - leaving an even greater shortfall in resources.
The choice was not a real choice. The devil of a cut ... or the deep blue sea.
I worry about a government who argues for greater powers for Scotland but imposes straight-jackets on local government. Can't they see the inconsistency?
This continuing freeze is populist short term nonsense. Professor David Bell is right - there is no sense in an effective cut in property taxes which mainly benefit middle incomes when the poorest suffer most from council cuts.
Pacts with the devil
Ok .. So councils that smile at a 2.6% cut in grant, and promise not to raise council tax, get one sum of money.
But if any council wants to protect services by raising council tax, regardless of what their constituents may say, get punished by a 6.4% cut in grant.
Someone (except NF) please explain the logic of a SNP government arguing for greater powers for Scotland and refusing to let Councils make their own decisions?
But if any council wants to protect services by raising council tax, regardless of what their constituents may say, get punished by a 6.4% cut in grant.
Someone (except NF) please explain the logic of a SNP government arguing for greater powers for Scotland and refusing to let Councils make their own decisions?
Child Benefit and Marriage Allowances
I thought that the government was being pragmatic when it announced that child benefit was to be withdrawn from families in the top tax bracket. A bit crude perhaps as in some families both parents will be high earners and in others only one and some the high earner will be the sole earner. But that is the way of our over-complex tax and benefit system.
I think it's pity to target child benefit rather than other options as it was regarded as the universal benefit that everyone shared at the time when they most needed the money - a transfer of money from perhaps later in life when earnings may be higher to the point when people tend to have children.
But I can't understand the Tory enthusiasm for marriage allowances.
The video explains the craziness better that I could.
But the LibDems seem to have agreed to the tax cut for married couple (OK to be fair - they get to abstain) without securing the raising of tax allowances for all. So much for fairness.
A Times article gives the cost of transferable allowances between married couples as £3.2 billion. Limiting this to those with children would reduce this to £1.5 billion. But just why should a marriage certificate give an advantage to one set of people over another?
I think it's pity to target child benefit rather than other options as it was regarded as the universal benefit that everyone shared at the time when they most needed the money - a transfer of money from perhaps later in life when earnings may be higher to the point when people tend to have children.
But I can't understand the Tory enthusiasm for marriage allowances.
The video explains the craziness better that I could.
But the LibDems seem to have agreed to the tax cut for married couple (OK to be fair - they get to abstain) without securing the raising of tax allowances for all. So much for fairness.
A Times article gives the cost of transferable allowances between married couples as £3.2 billion. Limiting this to those with children would reduce this to £1.5 billion. But just why should a marriage certificate give an advantage to one set of people over another?
The Lunatic Fringe
On Wednesday, Aberdeen City Council voted to support the razing (not a misspelling!) of Union Terrace Gardens and the replacement of these with Sir Ian Wood's vision of a City Square.
I think this was a wrong decision for three reasons
It's hard for councillors to say No to £50m. I am sure that the P&J and the Evening Express would have told us that councillors voting against City Squre were numpties and a danger to the economy of the north east of Scotland if the vote had gone the other way. Those against the proposals have been labelled as the Lunatic Fringe. This blog is called National Disgrace, Scroundrel and Extremist because those are labels that Donald Trump and his accolytes tried to attach to me and I am plainly none of those things. So I am happy to add Lunatic Fringe to the list - along with the 55% of those who were consulted on City Square who also said No.
People are genuinely angry about this decision and desperate for someone to take a lead in stopping this awful "development". I think that the economic case does not exist and the funding mechanism is too dubious. So the odds are that this willnot happen. It hasn't happened for 20 years .....
So let's group together as friends of Union Terrace Gardens and do what we can to conserve and improve them.
Meanwhile, thanks for this video of the Gardens on Saturday 22nd May 2010.
I think this was a wrong decision for three reasons
- It has dished Peacock Visual Arts proposals for a new Northern Lights Arts Centre which had secured most of the required funding and would have delivered a £5m/year economic boost to the City as well as making the gardens more accessible and providing handy facilities such as cafe and toilets.
- No economic case for the City Square has been made. This makes the proposed funding for the £90m+ that will not be given by Sir Ian Wood - Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) - dubious. TIF depends on the infrastructure being developed actually delivering tax increases locally - and for central government agreeing that those extra taxes can be used to pay of the local debt. Neither of these are certain.
- The gardens themselves are used and loved. They are a important cultural, historic and enviornmental asset to the City. 55% of the people in the City Square consultation said No to the City Sqaure proposals. As I have already said "Which bit of No, don't you understand?". Ian Wood said he would withdraw the offer unless the proposals were supported. But ASCEF wanted to pursue the issue and the City Council has agreed to this.
It's hard for councillors to say No to £50m. I am sure that the P&J and the Evening Express would have told us that councillors voting against City Squre were numpties and a danger to the economy of the north east of Scotland if the vote had gone the other way. Those against the proposals have been labelled as the Lunatic Fringe. This blog is called National Disgrace, Scroundrel and Extremist because those are labels that Donald Trump and his accolytes tried to attach to me and I am plainly none of those things. So I am happy to add Lunatic Fringe to the list - along with the 55% of those who were consulted on City Square who also said No.
People are genuinely angry about this decision and desperate for someone to take a lead in stopping this awful "development". I think that the economic case does not exist and the funding mechanism is too dubious. So the odds are that this willnot happen. It hasn't happened for 20 years .....
So let's group together as friends of Union Terrace Gardens and do what we can to conserve and improve them.
Meanwhile, thanks for this video of the Gardens on Saturday 22nd May 2010.
Robin Hood tax
The campaign for a Robin Hood Tax (a small tax on financial transactions) has launched a new video. Please click here and watch it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)