By Tim Ridgway
Latest TV
A Brighton councillor has been criticised after he stepped down from a fire authority in a protest over planned cuts just hours before a key meeting.
Sven Rufus, a Green councillor on Brighton and Hove City Council, said that it was with a “heavy heart” that he made the decision to step down as a member of the East Sussex Fire Authority.
Councillor Rufus, who represents Hollingdean and Stanmer ward on the council, was vice-chairman of the fire authority.
He said that he felt it was “the only way to highlight the grim future for our fire service, thanks to the austerity plans of all major Westminster parties”.
But, with the outcome of the vote unaffected by his resignation, some opposition councillors have said that his departure was an “empty gesture”.
Despite some political rivals privately suggesting that he should resign from being a councillor all together, opposition leaders told The Latest that it was a matter for the Green party to resolve.
Councillor Rufus is not personally commenting on the issue. In a public statement, he said: “As bad as it might seem now, continued cuts to the fire service will put more people’s live in danger over the coming years.”
His decision was taken before the fire authority meeting yesterday (Thursday 5 June) at the East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service headquarters in Eastbourne.
Faced with a reduction in grant of £7 million, authority members agreed to scrap one fire engine from Brighton and Hove.
This was despite experts and bosses admitting that it would put more lives at risk.
Councillor Rufus, who has been on the fire authority for seven years, added: “Over the years, the Greens have consistently sought to increase funding for local services through council tax.
“Only recently did Labour realise how essential this was and join us in voting for increases.
“Unfortunately it’s too late, and the financial black hole we face is even more severe than it might otherwise have been.
“I fear that the damage being done to the service by the coalition cuts will only continue to get worse, no matter which party or parties form the next national government in 2015.
“It will soon become impossible to provide the service the public expect and deserve as Labour and Tories heap more and more cuts upon the service.
“Through no fault of the firefighters or officers, the service will become unsustainable”.
I don’t know Cllr Rufus and came upon this report by accident, but take exception to his comments: “I fear that the damage being done to the service by the coalition cuts will only continue to get worse, no matter which party or parties form the next national government in 2015. It will soon become impossible to provide the service the public expect and deserve as Labour and Tories heap more and more cuts upon the service.” This is a scurrilous statement. What Labour cuts? Labour is not in any position to impose any cuts. And, anyway, the only way I know about the fire service cuts is from a flyer issued by the local Labour party publicising a campaign to fight them. These are Tory and LibDem cuts. And there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a Labour government would cut this service – in fact the opposite is true. I’m all for apportioning blame where it should lie, but these seems like blatant politicking to me. Cllr Rufus seems to have achieved nothing with his resignation other than a chance to make a statement knocking everything that is not Green. Poor show.
I don’t know Cllr Rufus and came upon this report by accident, but take exception to his comments: “I fear that the damage being done to the service by the coalition cuts will only continue to get worse, no matter which party or parties form the next national government in 2015. It will soon become impossible to provide the service the public expect and deserve as Labour and Tories heap more and more cuts upon the service.” This is a scurrilous statement. What Labour cuts? Labour is not in any position to impose any cuts. And, anyway, the only way I know about the fire service cuts is from a flyer issued by the local Labour party publicising a campaign to fight them. These are Tory and LibDem cuts. And there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a Labour government would cut this service – in fact the opposite is true. I’m all for apportioning blame where it should lie, but these seems like blatant politicking to me. Cllr Rufus seems to have achieved nothing with his resignation other than a chance to make a statement knocking everything that is not Green. Poor show.
A Green councillor; no suprise there then!
A Green councillor; no suprise there then!
Where is Labour’s bottle fighting austerity cuts? Nowhere, you all run to the hills!
Where is Labour’s bottle fighting austerity cuts? Nowhere, you all run to the hills!
I wonder what the green party would do to resolve this economic situation with the country badly in debt and having to make savings to ‘balance the books’?
Perhaps akin to the city budget where they were told they would get less from the government,and ignored this and proudly introduced the Living Wage increasing council costs; continued to implement vanity projects at a time (remember funding households hit by the bedroom tax and then claiming a victory when people moved into smaller houses, and now funding Solar PV installations that could be done for free by private companies!) when a responsible council would say ‘we can’t afford to do this now, but we will look at it in the future and we need to look at how to improve efficiency, make cuts and increase revenue?
Instead they tried to get a 4.5% increase in rates to fund even more vanity projects and were, luckily, thwarted by Labour.
Perhaps the green left-wing socialist approach would be to borrow even more money and increase general taxation to meet their aims?
Based upon how they’ve treated the local economy, it makes you shudder to think what they damage they could cause to the country! At least with 1 MP, 3 MEPs and 1 minority ‘led’ council and minimal increase (if any) in voter support, that this is extremely unlikely.
I wonder what the green party would do to resolve this economic situation with the country badly in debt and having to make savings to ‘balance the books’?
Perhaps akin to the city budget where they were told they would get less from the government,and ignored this and proudly introduced the Living Wage increasing council costs; continued to implement vanity projects at a time (remember funding households hit by the bedroom tax and then claiming a victory when people moved into smaller houses, and now funding Solar PV installations that could be done for free by private companies!) when a responsible council would say ‘we can’t afford to do this now, but we will look at it in the future and we need to look at how to improve efficiency, make cuts and increase revenue?
Instead they tried to get a 4.5% increase in rates to fund even more vanity projects and were, luckily, thwarted by Labour.
Perhaps the green left-wing socialist approach would be to borrow even more money and increase general taxation to meet their aims?
Based upon how they’ve treated the local economy, it makes you shudder to think what they damage they could cause to the country! At least with 1 MP, 3 MEPs and 1 minority ‘led’ council and minimal increase (if any) in voter support, that this is extremely unlikely.
More jobs and investment in the city, unemployment down, worst of the cuts avoided by collaborating with neighbouring councils and working with council officers, standing up against pernicious cuts to the most vulnerable. Makes you shudder to think what Greens might do with more power!
Oh, and the PVs make the council money through the feed in tarrif, a pump priming measure similar if tiny compared to that afforded to the fossil fuel industry over the years.
More jobs and investment in the city, unemployment down, worst of the cuts avoided by collaborating with neighbouring councils and working with council officers, standing up against pernicious cuts to the most vulnerable. Makes you shudder to think what Greens might do with more power!
Oh, and the PVs make the council money through the feed in tarrif, a pump priming measure similar if tiny compared to that afforded to the fossil fuel industry over the years.
Clouseau – back to the usual spin on how well they are doing – unfortunately the data backing these outlandish claims contradicts them. Unless you’d like to prove actual details instead of the usual green-spin-speak?
And that’s very fine spin on the Solar PV panels on the council flats. You might want to check Bill Randall’s propaganda council release on the subject.
They were allegedly installed to help reduce ‘energy poverty’ but they only actually power the shared lighting rather then directly helping tenants.
I asked the council how much the council expect to get back each year based upon the current £1.2m investment and how many years it would take to recoup the investment but I’ve had no response.
Could this be another idealistic but uneconomic green council plan like the one to power Volk’s Railway with Solar PV trees that has a 250 year payback.
If all the council wanted to do was reduce ‘energy poverty’ then why didn’t they use another company to providr the Solar infrastructure for free?
Isn’t it typically irresponsible to spend when you are strapped for money on something that someone else could provide for free and potentially really help residents?
But keep up the spinning – someone might believe it!
Clouseau – back to the usual spin on how well they are doing – unfortunately the data backing these outlandish claims contradicts them. Unless you’d like to prove actual details instead of the usual green-spin-speak?
And that’s very fine spin on the Solar PV panels on the council flats. You might want to check Bill Randall’s propaganda council release on the subject.
They were allegedly installed to help reduce ‘energy poverty’ but they only actually power the shared lighting rather then directly helping tenants.
I asked the council how much the council expect to get back each year based upon the current £1.2m investment and how many years it would take to recoup the investment but I’ve had no response.
Could this be another idealistic but uneconomic green council plan like the one to power Volk’s Railway with Solar PV trees that has a 250 year payback.
If all the council wanted to do was reduce ‘energy poverty’ then why didn’t they use another company to providr the Solar infrastructure for free?
Isn’t it typically irresponsible to spend when you are strapped for money on something that someone else could provide for free and potentially really help residents?
But keep up the spinning – someone might believe it!
Clouseau – back to the usual spin on how well they are doing – unfortunately the data backing these outlandish claims contradicts them. Unless you’d like to prove actual details instead of the usual green-spin-speak?
And that’s very fine spin on the Solar PV panels on the council flats. You might want to check Bill Randall’s propaganda council release on the subject.
They were allegedly installed to help reduce ‘energy poverty’ but they only actually power the shared lighting rather then directly helping tenants.
I asked the council how much the council expect to get back each year based upon the current £1.2m investment and how many years it would take to recoup the investment but I’ve had no response.
Could this be another idealistic but uneconomic green council plan like the one to power Volk’s Railway with Solar PV trees that has a 250 year payback.
If all the council wanted to do was reduce ‘energy poverty’ then why didn’t they use another company to providr the Solar infrastructure for free?
Isn’t it typically irresponsible to spend when you are strapped for money on something that someone else could provide for free and potentially really help residents?
But keep up the spinning – someone might believe it!