Surrey County Council - Social Care - Referendum

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Surrey County Council has decided that they've had enough of the lies and disinformation coming from the government over Social Care funding and the cuts that they have imposed; and so the (Conservative) SCC leader David Hodge has announced that I will have a vote in a referendum in May to add 15% to my Council Tax. This will increase my annual bill by £258.

I do not want to pay more; I believe that the government should ensure that councils can adequately fund social care - but, given what I currently know; what I have heard and read - I believe David Hodge and so I will vote Yes.

And when such a referendum on Social Care funding comes your way?

 

[NWJocko]

Would depend what they plan on spending the additional tax take on. I'm not averse to paying more council tax in such circumstances by any stretch but having witnessed the absolutely appalling use of funds within Local Authority's I would take nothing at face value in terms of their ability to transfer increased budget into better provision (for anything really).

So not an easy one to say "yes" to other than on a general level where I'm open to such proposals.

 

[IanM]

Best ask what the right answer is in case you get it wrong. If you do they'll claim you didn't understand the question, it'll go to court and Richard Branson will fund a campaign to have it overturned... all very messy...

And as requested by colleague on another thread #humour

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Best ask what the right answer is in case you get it wrong. If you do they'll claim you didn't understand the question, it'll go to court and Richard Branson will fund a campaign to have it overturned... all very messy...

And as requested by colleague on another thread #humour

:thup:

 

[Hobbit]

If more money is needed, it has to come from the people. Or there's always more borrowing. If 'we' want a particular level of social care, or even the bins emptied, 'we' have to pay for it.

However, I'd rather see it done by raising income tax. That way those that can pay do, and those that can't don't. Having local councils raising money like this sees a postcode lottery for care and a style of local funding too much like the American model.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Would depend what they plan on spending the additional tax take on. I'm not averse to paying more council tax in such circumstances by any stretch but having witnessed the absolutely appalling use of funds within Local Authority's I would take nothing at face value in terms of their ability to transfer increased budget into better provision (for anything really).

So not an easy one to say "yes" to other than on a general level where I'm open to such proposals.

At the moment this is as much as I know

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/your-council/council-tax-and-finance/council-tax

 

[NWJocko]

At the moment this is as much as I know

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/your-council/council-tax-and-finance/council-tax

Not enough information in there as to how they've arrived at the requirement for 15% (seems a bit arbitrary), where it will be spent etc etc to answer.

I also agree with Hobbit that things like this would be better off raised centrally via Income Tax as schemes such as this locally increases the variance of provision (in many areas) from council to council......

Believe me, I spent a year lobbying the Dept of Education and my MP all about this type of thing, the waste of money within councils is breathtaking so I have an inbuilt cynicism about this.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Having a mother who had to sell the family home to be a "self funder" in a (admitedly very good care home) I can see a large amount of good in this idea. However having had a wife (who could only stomach a year) work for the council in social care ( after 2 decades with a bank) the waste was immense and quite disgusting. The checks and balances just werent strong enough, not just with the wastage of public funds to care providers but within the staff who the majority it seemed had the "efficiency means less staff" thinking, so did everything as slowly as they could.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I saw the head of the council being interviewed a few days ago. He is making a point. Govt is giving councils less money and expecting them to do more. This guy is making it clear to his electorate of the consequences of the fund reduction. I suspect it will be rejected at which point he will have to cut services but point out that is what the electorate chose. Smart move from him.

The issue over social care is huge, particularly in how it is also impacting on the NHS. It needs sorting and central govt really have to take this on.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Not enough information in there as to how they've arrived at the requirement for 15% (seems a bit arbitrary), where it will be spent etc etc to answer.

I also agree with Hobbit that things like this would be better off raised centrally via Income Tax as schemes such as this locally increases the variance of provision (in many areas) from council to council......

Believe me, I spent a year lobbying the Dept of Education and my MP all about this type of thing, the waste of money within councils is breathtaking so I have an inbuilt cynicism about this.

The council leader has separately explained and outlined the 'efficiency' savings they have made - and they have been significant - coming about through cutting and sharing services (within the council and with other councils) - and they have shown the impact of the funding cuts.

"...I regret, despite us finding £450 million worth of savings from our annual budget, we have no choice but to propose this increase in council tax."

http://www.thecanary.co/2017/01/20/...e-impacts-governments-social-care-cuts-video/

For the referendum they will outline the alternative to the increase - showing what would need to be cut.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I saw the head of the council being interviewed a few days ago. He is making a point. Govt is giving councils less money and expecting them to do more. This guy is making it clear to his electorate of the consequences of the fund reduction. I suspect it will be rejected at which point he will have to cut services but point out that is what the electorate chose. Smart move from him.

The issue over social care is huge, particularly in how it is also impacting on the NHS. It needs sorting and central govt really have to take this on.

He also makes the point that a lot of specialist hospitals are in Surrey - and many folk are treated in the area because of that - with attendant knock-on to subsequent social care required

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

OK - so I'm not going to be voting in a referendum - but who is this Nick who has saved me a vote.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...y-county-council-tax-referendum-a7568831.html

 

[richart]

OK - so I'm not going to be voting in a referendum - but who is this Nick who has saved me a vote.

the Devil ?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

the Devil ?

Ah - now we'll find the date of the exchange was 25th January

There sat auld Nick, in shape o' beast;
A towzie tyke, black, grim, and large,
To gie them music was his charge:
He scre'd the pipes and gart them skirl,

And so auld Nick got David Hodge dancing to the government's tune.

 

[richart]

Ah - now we'll find the date of the exchange was 25th January

There sat auld Nick, in shape o' beast;
A towzie tyke, black, grim, and large,
To gie them music was his charge:
He scre'd the pipes and gart them skirl,

And so auld Nick got David Hodge dancing to the government's tune.

Didn't know the Devil was from Yorkshire, but it explains a lot.

 

[bobmac]

I would vote yes as long as the extra money raised wasn't used to pay for the £100,000 bonus to be paid to David Mcnulty that David Hodge approved IN SECRET.

 

[bobmac]

The same David Hodge who in 2014 opposed a resolution that would have given the most poorly paid workers in the council the living wage of £7.65 but awarded himself a 60% PAY RISE giving him a salary of over £200,000 a year

 

[bobmac]

The same David Hodge who has done a deal....I mean a U turn and has asked for a 4.99% increase that doesn't require a referendum.
Looks like you wont get to vote after all

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The same David Hodge who has done a deal....I mean a U turn and has asked for a 4.99% increase that doesn't require a referendum.
Looks like you wont get to vote after all

Correct - given Surrey look to have been given a 'special deal' (backhander?) by the government to not have their referendum - as that would seriously embarrass the government and Surrey MPs such as Grayling, Hunt, Gove, Hammond, Blunt and Raab. High or pretty high profile Tory MPs one and all.

 

[Tashyboy]

Just out of interest, if Surrey one of the most affluent places in the UK is struggling how are the more less well off places managing. Summat stinks to high heaven. This is another example of when the opposition should be able score brownie points, but it is Jeremy Corbyn.