Segment of Brent Cabinet dealing with Council Tax Support (Apologies for poor sound quality on Brent Council recording)
Dear Wembley Matters
When is a Consultation NOT a Consultation?
When Labour Brent Council calls something a "Consultation", asks people to express their views and....then ignores them.
A few days ago Martin reported on the drastic CUTS in support to around 17,000 individuals and families in Brent currently receiving support with their Council Tax bills.
In simple terms the Labour Leadership is proposing to cut £8 million from the Council Tax Support Scheme and set up a £1.5 million hardship fund to help the people most impacted and facing the greatest hardship.
Hundreds (possibly thousands) of Brent residents now face having to pay up to £600 a year (£50 per month) more than before.
At the same time the Brent element of the Council Tax is going up by another 5% and in 2025/26 the Band D Council Tax will be £2,133.
Brent officers admit that even with the £1.5 million hardship fund in place many residents will not be able to pay, will fall into even greater debt and the Council will be forced to write off many of those debts.
I went to the Cabinet on the Monday morning 10 February to argue for two changes to the Labour proposals:
- Doubling of the £1.5 million hardship fund to £3 million
- Reject the proposal to use Universal Credit rules of only allowing backdating of Council Tax Support Scheme for just 1 month - for the simple reasons that Universal Credit is far too complicated and that most people are unaware of the Council Tax Support Scheme and will inevitably claim too late - and lose out on what they were entitled to.
I made the point that extra support was needed this year because the CUT was being rushed and the people impacted had very little time to get help, advice or an opportunity to take steps to manage their income or expenditure to be able to afford the extra cost that will hit them from 1 April 2025 just 7 weeks away.
Needless to say my suggestions were rejected out of hand after the usual Councillor Butt rant totally unrelated to the issue.
Oh, yes Consultation?
In his previous article Martin also published a response to the consultation from the Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB). Their research and a number of case studies highlighted the hardship and impact the drastic Labour Cuts will have on real Brent residents. The CAB also made some recommendations as to how the worst impact could be mitigated.
Paragraph 10.4 of the Council Report on the issue that went to Cabinet makes the intent of the Brent style "consultation" very clear:
"Given the scale of the budget challenge, the Council’s preferred option was to consult on the proposal which resulted in the saving level needed."
What exactly was the point of the 8 week consultation exercise? Was there any intention to listen to the CAB or anyone else? Of course NOT!
This was another case of a SHAM Labour Consultation of which we have had many over the years.
So next time you hear a Labour politician shed crocodile tears over the cost of living crisis feel free to point out how much harder they have made things for thousands of Brent residents as a result of their decision.
Yours
Paul Lorber
At times, I struggle to articulate my thoughts adequately when confronted with a situation of this nature.
ReplyDeleteAnd remember how many businesses are now holding off hiring new staff because of Labour's last budget!!!
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile will Brent Council Leader Cllr Mo Butt continue to accept all his free tickets which should be taxed as they are unearned income...
ReplyDeleteCouncil leader accepts £6,000 worth of major Wembley Stadium events tickets over 4 years: https://harrowonline.org/2024/12/05/council-leader-accepts-6000-worth-of-major-wembley-stadium-events-tickets-over-4-years/
The gifts of stadium tickets are not taxable income, and Cllr. Butt has declared them in his Register of Members' Interests, as he is required to do.
DeleteHowever, the level and timing of some of these "freebies" does raise concerns over a conflict of interests, particularly over major Council decisions about matters affecting the Stadium, such as it's application to increase the number of large events it is allowed to hold each year.
His obvious support for that application may well have influenced Labour councillors to vote in favour of the application, despite the concerns of residents and others who opposed the increase.
The freebie tickets should be liable for tax as they are unearned income received specifically because of the job he's doing.
DeleteWhy exactly did he get so many tickets for some events??? Apparently they didn't go to Brent Council staff they were instead used by his family.
Paul is right to highlight the points he has made above, and which he made to the Cabinet meeting.
ReplyDeleteIt did not change the way the decision went, because virtually all Cabinet decisions are actually made before the meeting takes place. Even though good reasons may be given by non-Cabinet councillors, or members of the public, which Cabinet members should properly consider before a decision is made, such points are ignored (as I know from personal experience last May!).
Paul already knows the answer to the question, because he and any residents who follow what goes on at the Town Hall or Civic Centre have seen it happen time and again since 2010:
Q - When is a Consultation not a consultation?
A - When it's a Brent Council consultation!
To Mr Lorber (and Mr Grant), just because you don't get your own way doesn't make a consultation illegitimate. I responded to the consultation and suggested that the council go much further in cutting CT relief. There are a range of views, we are at opposite ends and neither got what we wanted, but then that would be impossible
ReplyDeleteConsultations are weaponised as a matter of course by Brent. As long as there has been a consultation and differing views have been heard then the premise that accomodations have been made is accepted, even though no other action is taken or intended. It is a sham democracy.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion though, where extra funding is requested, the requestor should also say where corresponding cuts should be made to pay for it or how much extra taxation should be made.
We need to make an effort to live within our means. Having a government that is sabotaging the economy is of course making life harder especially for the most vulnerable and least able to afford it.
Remember the ‘ consultation’ on whether the school at Stonebridge should take over the Adventure Playground. There was a petition of 800 in support of the Adventure playground, the consultation was 86 in support of the Adventure playground and 2 in support of the school! What did the Council do?
ReplyDeleteThe Council, aka Mo Butt, did what it always intended to of course!
Delete