We voted with the Conservatives on a 1.96% increase in the council tax (although there was barely a vote, it was more of a mumble-mumble-agreed)
But at last Tuesday’s meeting we mentioned three things where we disagreed with them.
Firstly the Council has come up with an official list of ‘non-priorities’. This is purely an effort to tick another NuLabour box, because central government currently thinks it’s good if councils have a list of ‘non-priorities.’ We are not happy that ‘residents parking schemes’ are on this list. The Liberal Democrat group believe that we should look at residents on-street parking schemes when appropriate.
Secondly, the council is planning to spend ?475,000 on new office accomodation in Rochford. There may be a case for this if it allows us to sell existing council property for a good price. But we wanted this item to be discussed by all 39 councillors in Full Council. Instead, it will be decided by the council cabinet, which only consists of Conservatives and where no other councillor can speak or even ask questions. We don’t think this is the best way to ensure value for money and that this item needs proper debate *
Thirdly, there’s the issue of ‘treasury management’- managing the council’s funds so that we put money on deposit where we get a decent interest rate without investing in risky banks. The council cabinet is being given responsibility for regularly monitoring this. Now , our council officers have done a very good job on this in the past. We’ve not lost any money, or even come close to losing any. The cabinet probably won’t have to do anything. But the Conservative councillor who really knows about this stuff isn’t in the cabinet. So it just seems plain dumb to have a system where he can’t even speak at the meetings that will discuss this.
* Barack Obama would do things differently if he was Rochford’s leader! This week he said:
“I’m a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security; that’s not something that’s only good for our country, it’s absolutely essential.
It’s only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back-and-forth, that imperfect, but well-founded process, messy as it often is, is at the heart of our democracy. It’s what makes us the greatest nation in the world.”