So, I’ve been called “Trump-like” by colleagues on Brighton and Hove City Council who refused to acknowledge and support the basic premise of value for money.
It was amazing how quickly colleagues in the Labour and Green coalition rose to their virtual feet at full council last week to explain why they did not need to offer the residents of Brighton and Hove value for money.
What’s alarming, and somewhat sinister, is that this utter disregard for value for money came from the finance and audit leads in the Green and Labour groups.
Should we be surprised? Perhaps not, given that the tendency to use close-minded and uncivil language from the coalition betrays what is liberal in liberalism.
What we faced last week was illiberal liberalism at its best.
Let’s pause and think about this. What was so wrong and insulting with calling for value for money for the city’s residents that warranted such a stern rebuke?
I had the “doughnut on a stick” waived at me but when I last raised it at the Audit and Standards Committee myself last year it got waived away.
Let’s unpack then why there is nothing wrong with asking for value for money from the administration and its coalition partner.
And for those who doubt that it’s a coalition, it’s worth checking the number of joint “notices of motion” being put forward meeting after meeting – eight jointly by Labour and the Greens, 75 per cent of which were on national, not local, issues.
There is nothing wrong, or there was nothing wrong last week, with value for money because in the item that immediately followed at full council, Labour and Green councillors called in a joint motion for all political groups to support the “Future Generations” bill going through Parliament which – surprise, surprise – calls for value for money for future generations. That was some sleight of hand from the coalition.
I continue to believe we need value for money accounted for in the price we pay for providing any service in the city, in how much we get for what we pay and the impact of the service. In other words, how successful it is.
Value for money is gained, because you have to work for it, when you provide – as a local authority – relatively low costs for procured goods and services, high productivity and successful outcomes. This is what our residents want.
As a group, the Conservatives put forward the motion on value for money not because we questioned the cost of the services, but because we questioned the money paid over and above that cost – £10 million spent insourcing the city’s housing repair service, the same one subject to recent industrial action.
Value for money is important to our residents – council taxpayers – because they often judge the council’s value for money performance by looking at the level of council tax and how much it is rising year on year.
As a council, we can and should look at our spending per head of population compared to other councils to benchmark that our spending is consistent with priorities and needs. We do not do this as a local authority.
We requested a “value for money programme” and a “workstyles” transformation programme which have been implemented in the past.
Tory Councillors seem to decided on writing long columns full of complicated issues which are impossible to check. They avoid mentioning austerity and the huge cuts imposed by George Osborne on every local council.
Apparently the 2007-2011 Tory led regime was a triumph of economic growth .
An easily checkable facts are they lost seats and power in 2011 and they were supporters of what they now describe as a doughnut on a stick which is why comparisons to Trump and alternative facts are correct.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t retropectivally challenge the 2011 result in their next column
This is absolute trash and I thought this publication was above publishing fake news.
Just because you disagree, doesn’t make it fake news. Sadly, you sound like Trump yourself. You forget (or never knew) the austerity policies were merely an extension of those introduced by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling following the financial collapse in 2007-8. The only notable policy difference during the Coalition Government was Ed Balls saying Labor wouldn’t go so far so fast with the cuts he would make. And let’s not forget Liam Byrne leaving a note in his Treasury desk drawer for the Coalition saying, I’m afraid there is no money. And remember, Brown helped Labour win power with ‘Prudence’, or as others might say, balancing the books and seeking value for money!
Didn’t the Greens run the workstyles programme previously? It might have been a Tory policy but I think when the Greens first ran the council, in 2011-15, they kept the policy. They sold off buildings they no longer wanted. Invested in IT. Some of it was questionable, especially on the IT side, and the culture among some council staff still leaves a lot to be desired (although, to be fair, some are exemplary). It’s not black and white. Or just blue, red and green. But the opposition to ‘value for money’ is bizarre, and it has succeeded in making the supposedly liberal Greens and Labour councillors sound very illiberal.
Amazing how some commentators jump on the ”it’s Tory, it must be bad bandwagon”. Value for money is something we all do in our daily living and it’s something the council must be doing as well. I am becoming increasingly worried as a Labour supporter that the local Conservatives are talking a lot of sense on many issues and at least are providing some opposition to the Greens, which our local democracy so desperately needs.
Sure, definitely believe these Labour voters in the comments slamming the greens and praising the Tories. Real believable.
Question… Do we want a party that clearly would stoop to astroturfing comments sections and other social media?
Nah…
The Greens and Labour enjoy spending other peoples money but find it almost impossible to create revenue streams.
Mears never provided value for money and anyone who says otherwise mostly tories are deluded
We have to ask why they keep raving on about them. They never call out there tax avoiding mates
Sooner we have a new Brighton party locally the better
Being a resident of this city for some 40 years+, Brighton & Hove was always best served under the Conservatives … & I am not a Tory voter!
Yes, and as a Labour Party member and voter for 30 years ago, I would agree with you!
Detached From Reality… council housing maintenance that is done by cowboys who basically destroy nearly everything they touch is bad for tenants wellbeing. But noooo we have to have “value for money”. What value is there in letting the private company basically write cheques to themselves for sub standard work? Honestly, every job they did for 15 years I could have done a better quality job if I had the tools and materials (excluding electrical and gas for obvious reasons).
The good homes standard and double glazing contracts were a lesson in how a private company can rip off the state and supply substandard cheap materials and workmanship on the unfortunate residents who can’t really complain in any meaningful way.
I stopped reading shortly after that because I just can’t be bothered with their appeals to ignorance.