Are Nottinghamshire County Council’s cuts purely ideological?

Posted on January 12th, 2010 by Ravi Subramanian

Nottinghamshire County Council’s controversial 2010/11 budget proposals have already been documented by Tory Stories. And not only do these proposals target the most vulnerable; they are also largely unnecessary. The Conservative-led council claims that there is a £33m budget gap, yet UNISON has shown has that alternative measures would close at least £24m of this gap without the proposed cuts.

Firstly, raising council tax by a modest 3 per cent would raise £9m. The weekly cost would be 46p for a Band A house rising to £1.37 for a Band H house. Under the current proposals, in contrast, many vulnerable people will be forced to pay over £10 per week more in charges.

Secondly, there is a predicted under-spend this year of £10.4m. The council has decided to put £5.4m of this into reserves. It could use the full £10.4m to protect vital services.

Thirdly, the council has reserves of over £150m, of which £24m is unallocated. Reserves are there to help in hard times, and in a recession public services are needed more, not less. The council could use £2m of its reserves to avoid public service cuts.

Fourthly, the council spent over £19m on agency workers last year; the highest spend of all East Midlands councils. If it implemented proper management measures it could easily save 10 per cent, which comes to £1.9m.

Fifthly, the council’s predictions assume that there will be no increase to the council tax base, i.e. the increase in revenue because of newly built homes. Growth of new homes has slowed dramatically, but it has not stopped. Using nationally available figures we predict a modest growth in the tax base of 0.5 per cent. This gives an additional £1.5m.

Sixthly, the council created extra cabinet posts after the June elections and recently advertised for a new communications role. Scrapping these unnecessary posts would save over £130,000.

The above items come to over £24m. We are still working on our proposals and we believe we can identify at least another £3m. It is not yet too late for the council to change its proposals; the final budget decision is not until 25 February, and the public consultation is open until 22 January. If it does not take up these opportunities to close the budget gap, we will have to assume that the cuts are purely ideological, something that would also reveal a lot about David Cameron’s plans for the country. Time will tell.

Nottinghamshire County Council: taking from the poor, giving to the rich

Posted on December 26th, 2009 by Jeremy Cliffe

According to the Conservatives’ 2009 report How Conservative Councils are helping in the recession, “David Cameron has made it clear that the Conservatives will bring a culture of thrift to government. But Conservative councils are already making a difference by instilling a culture of thrift in local government finance”. And on Nottinghamshire County Council, for example, Conservative council leader Kay Cutts claims that hers is a “no frills, bread-and-butter administration”.

Yet on winning control of the council from Labour in June 2009, Cutts promptly redecorated the ruling group’s offices at a cost to the taxpayer of £11,000 and increased the cabinet wage bill by £168,000. Other such steps included redesigning the council’s logo, removing stained glass windows depicting local industries, covering up a memorial to the Spanish Civil War dead and removing a memorial dedicated to the Child Migrants Trust because it was not sufficiently “positive”.

Cutts then ditched the council’s costed spending plans and proposed that council tax rates be frozen until at least 2013 whilst insisting that she would “make sure that [people] will be looked after”. The council’s 2010/11 budget proposals prescribed £31 million of cuts in services, including such ‘frills’ as welfare rights advice, care for the physically and mentally disabled, a community minibus scheme and waste recycling centres. It also plans to sell off all thirteen of its residential homes for the elderly, increase charges for home care and meals-on-wheels and cut funding for school buses, extra-curricular activities, sports and cultural centres, libraries and concessionary train and bus fares. UNISON has accused the council of exaggerating budgetary pressures in order to make the case for the cuts, which could involve around 1,400 redundancies. Meanwhile, the council’s own survey found that 67% of residents felt that the council had previously been spending the “right amount” or “not enough” on children’s social care. 73% felt this way about social care for the elderly, 73% about care for the physically disabled, 76% about support for schools and 80% about care for the mentally disabled.

Cutts has blamed the government for the need for savings (despite her £9 million rates freeze and a £8.5 million increase to the council’s 2010/11 grant from central government) and sent the council’s Chief Executive out to face protesters in order to avoid compromising her ‘neutrality’. Her decision to create a new council communications role at £71,000 per year has also attracted criticism, as has her refusal to meet with trade union representatives.

The media, trade unions and opposition politicians have noted that the burden of the cuts is concentrated on the most vulnerable: the poor, elderly and disabled. The BBC’s Politics Show reported that 90-year-old Irene D’Arcy, who “needs help with washing and getting out of bed” will have to pay over 35% more for essential home help. This, the BBC reports, would “amount to more than her pension and she simply cannot afford it”.

Meanwhile, 78-year old Noreen Swepston will have to find the money for taxis if, as planned, the community transport service is axed: “For someone like me [the service] is invaluable. […] It’s the social side – the aspect of socialising with other people means a lot to me. I’ve got to do something to relieve the monotony of talking to myself.” UNISON has argued that the increases in transport, meals and daycare charges will mean that “some older people could easily be paying £5 per day more in charges”. By contrast, the wealthiest (Band H) ratepayers will enjoy a tax cut of £1.85 per week. The Conservatives’  ’culture of thrift’, it seems, hits some people harder than others.