Forum menu
Chestercopperpot if all that is the case then it's no coincidence at all that it is Surrey that this is happening in (in terms of what a difference this would make to the working lives of their local MP's 🙁 )
No gin needed, it's true
We have good adult education courses down here!!
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/08/jeremy-corbyn-accuses-may-of-sweetheart-deal-surrey-council-tax?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other ]Surrey council tax referendum killed off by alleged sweetheart deal.[/url]
Well this looks embarrassing: Surrey council, home of Hammond and Hunt's constituency has somehow pulled off the impossible and found a solution to the embarrassing possibility of a referendum to hike council tax by 15% to pay for social care. Which is of course great news for basically everybody in Surrey. The embarrassing part being the window into the process that we get from these text messages, and the coincidence of the embarrassment that the referendum would cause to the Secretary of State for health and chancellor.
julianwilson - Member
Surrey council tax referendum killed off by alleged sweetheart deal.
Saw that. Special deals here and there, hey? Just like Nissan, etc.
So. When is a pilot scheme a pilot scheme, and when is it (and I quote Hodge here) a gentleman's agreement between the cabinet and the council hosting the constituencies of the chancellor and Secretary of State for health?
Rabid leftist frothing from the torygraph here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/surrey-council-boss-tells-gentlemans-agreement-ministers-social/
Isn't the reality that the council leader was told "off the record" that the matter would be addressed in the bduget. Or a simple "trust us, we are going to sort this out in March"
"So. When is a pilot scheme a pilot scheme, and when is it (and I quote Hodge here) a gentleman's agreement between the cabinet and the council hosting the constituencies of the chancellor and Secretary of State for health?
Rabid leftist frothing from the torygraph here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/surrey-council-boss-tells-gentlemans-agreement-ministers-social /"
Err, what's wrong with that? Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Council leader tells Govt that without Social care being addressed they'll be raising tax which will embarrassing the govt. Govt address social care. That's the system working isn't it?
Would if still be wrong if it was (say) a Lib Dem making the threat?
I am not sure I agree with the method: if this referendum goes through, will we have the implication that social care is no longer the ultimate responsibility of central government?
Consider yourself a relatively well off Tory voter in this constituency. If your council tax goes up by 15% it's annoying but not particularly troublesome. If your income tax goes up by 15% it impacts on both time in your Spanish holiday home and at the golf club. At the same time, the poor in society are disproportionately paying because their council tax payments as a percentage of their income are far higher, but their income tax is relatively low (depending on their TFA, possibly zero).
The costs get covered, the voters are happy (because deep down councils have only one interest), and central government can stick to their policy of no tax increases while running thr country into the ground and pocketing a fortune.