A senior Green councillor has accused Labour of concealing the worsening town hall finances while the deputy leader of the council hit back by highlighting the record of his political rivals.
Councillor Ollie Sykes said that Labour had often cited a £3 million overspend in 2022-23, the Greens’ final year running Brighton and Hove City Council.
And they had used it as a stick to beat the Greens with, although the overspend had been funded from reserves.
Councillor Sykes told the council’s Labour cabinet yesterday (Monday 29 June) that the current financial position was “far from rosy” despite the breakeven position.
He said that there was a £9 million overspend by last December and that was reduced to £6 million through spending controls including recruitment freezes.
By the end of the financial year, at the end of March, the council declared that it had broken even but Councillor Sykes said this had been achieved through “smoke and mirror financials”.
He said that the council had used one-off reserves and made “flexible use” of capital receipts which meant that there was a “structural shortfall” of £7 million to £8 million carried forward.
Councillor Sykes said: “The difference in the two positions, apart from now being twice as bad as then, is openness and honesty.
“As I said at (the annual budget council meeting in February), the administration knew at the start of the year they wouldn’t be able to balance the books in 2025-26.
“So they changed plans and raided all sorts of reserves in-year to ensure the headline position was breakeven by the end of the financial year.
“This presents a skewed picture to the public – and in terms of financial management also introduces a moral hazard in terms of incentivisation to efficiency.”
Labour councillor Jacob Taylor, the deputy leader who speaks on finance, said the the financial position was set out clearly in the latest report to the cabinet.
It said that the breakeven position had been achieved through spending controls and releasing centrally held funds.
He said that Councillor Sykes’s comments were “disingenuous” because the report was clear that “one-off” actions had been taken to ensure that the council broke even.
Councillor Taylor said: “That is very different to an overspend that draws down the ‘general working balance’ because reserves can be released if they’re not needed.
“We don’t hold reserves for fun. We hold reserves if we need them. So reserves relating to all sorts of capital projects should be released if we don’t need them to try to get to a break-even position.”
He said that the council needed to get into the discipline of not overspending its general fund and working balance each year – and not holding on to reserves that were not needed.
The biggest demand-led pressures on the budget were community care, with a £7 million overspend above the £81 million budget, according to the latest budget update.
The level of overspend went up by more than £2 million in January because of a home care contract, the report said.
Temporary housing was the next-biggest overspend – by of £6.8 million or 27 per cent more than the £5.4 million budget.
Over the past year, the council has found homes for more than 2,100 households a month in emergency or temporary housing in Brighton and Hove, 40 per cent of them children.
The budget for child agency and in-house placements was overspent by £1.35 million. This was linked to the high cost of placements for children in care and difficulties in recruiting foster carers.
Councillor Sykes didn’t stay for the actual agenda item where his question was explored in detail. That seems really unprofessional to me, and makes him appear very unserious.
Cllr Hill (Green, Roundhill ward) is the only opposition member who has ever stayed for the length of the meeting. Its quite shocking that both the green leader and the tory leader in hove town hall have NEVER been to cabinet…
The Cabinet excludes most opposition Councillors unless they are there to ask a question and then they are expected to leave. It’s a private club and Ollie Sykes isn’t in it.
They don’t even ask questions Tracy! I see Cllr Lyons left the audit committee early too. Early bath for the opposition?
It turns out Ivan didn’t claim a penny in expenses, so maybe he had nothing to explain.
That’s pretty damning, especially when you see them complaining that they feel scrutiny is limited, but then minimise their ability to scrutinise, by leaving early.
I quite like Cllr Hill personally. I think they ask interesting questions and rarely gets bogged down in the political point-scoring the rest of the party tends to veer towards. Certainly seems more professional than the Green and Tory leaders in that regard, I agree with you Terrance!
As someone who finds policy much more interesting than party politics – I agree with you that it is off-putting when councillors resort to political point scoring – whatever party they are from. It just comes across as a bit unprofessional and childish.
Although given the numerous comments made by Bella Sankey, Jacob Taylor and others both in the Council Chamber, newspaper articles and online I really don’t think anyone who is part of the local Labour Party should be criticising other parties for the practice. Maybe it is just that it comes across as justified from your perspective when it is the people you support who are doing it?
I’m not a fan of it coming from anyone, to be honest. Even if it’s a response, I think there are better ways to articulating a point.
If you are not a fan of political point maybe you could refrain from calling other people’s views ‘silly’ as you do elsewhere in this thread? As you say, there are better ways to articulate a point.
I mean, the harsher version of that is to call the “silly” comment a performative outrage often associated with a pattern of behaviour that highlights the writer’s lack of insight, and coming from a place of ignorance and unwillingness to adjust one’s views or educate oneself on months of being called out on this in a variety of ways, which have nothing to do with one’s political persuasion.
Or for the sake of brevity, a silly comment.
I’ll take that as a concession that there are better ways to make a point than calling other people’s views silly. We agree on that at least.
Silly is the concession, Toto. I made that exceptionally clear just now.
Councillor Sykes is an opposition councillor, he is not part of the Cabinet and it was a Cabinet meeting.
Since the Labour administration scrapped the committee system and introduced the Cabinet system they have essentially stifled political date and residents contributions. There is only limited opportunity for opposition councillors and members of the public to ask questions of the Cabinet. Anyone who watches the meetings online will see that the majority of the meeting is Labour Cabinet members giving each other self-congratulatory pats on the back and making performative speeches full of Labour Party drivel.
Why any opposition councillor or members of the public would want to sit through the farce of these meetings in full is beyond me – Labour councillors at BHCC are delusional and burying their heads in the sand about how dreadfully let down people feel by Labour nationally and locally. Until they stop their denial they will just keep shedding voters and losing residents’ trust.
Because that is what they are elected to do and that is the expectation of them, regardless of their political allegiances, they answer to the electorate first and foremost, Ellie.
Benjamin – you haven’t engaged with Ellie B’s point.
Under the Council’s constitution for the executive, councillors get a maximum of 15 minutes near the start of the meeting for member questions and there is also 15 minutes for representations from opposition group leaders.
The questions from members have to be submitted in advance and the member cannot ask any follow-up. It is up to the executive if they answer orally or in writing.
After that section of the meeting, opposition councillors do not get to take any active role. They could just sitting there listening to the Labour Councillors nodding things through – there seems to be minimal scrutiny or challenge in these sessions from the ones I have watched – but they could equally catch-up with that later on the YouTube broadcast. There seems to be little benefit for them – or the residents they represent – in staying in the Chamber after the initial questions.
Do you think that the Cabinet system, as it is operating in Brighton and Hove at the moment, is offering meaningful opportunities for challenge and scrutiny? Because I’m concerned that there is plenty of evidence that this is a question that it is worth anyone who is interested in local democracy asking.
I’m not going to get dragged into a false binary, but for your example, why bother turning up to speak the question when they could have just written it, and received a written answer. The only explanation for that is political performance. That falls well below what the electorate should expect, who have made it very clear previously that they are against remote working.
And beyond all of that, if you ask a question, basic manners would expect one to stay to hear the answer, both the direct response, and the discussion on the topic, which, after hearing several opposition questions previous, would have certainly helped avoid asking rather silly questions that can be answered by “read the first page of the report.”
It speaks to a disinterested councillor, and is that really what the electorate want in their elected officals?
Why have the Green led Hastings not ditched cabinet system if it is so corrupt? Not to mention the places they are in coalition like Lewes, Wealden, West Sussex?
Not all Cabinet systems operate in the same way.
For example, in Hastings, Councillors can speak at Cabinet on issues that impact on their Ward. Under their constitution, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, comes from the Opposition, and none of the members of that Committee can be from the Cabinet.
In Lewes, the Leader of the opposition party, the Deputy Leader of the opposition party, the Chair of the Policy and Performance Advisory Committee and the Chair of the
Audit and Governance Committee are all entitled to attend and speak at any meeting of the Cabinet. The Policy and Performance Committee, which is chaired by the opposition party, can set its own agenda and get support from council officers.
It should be in any political party’s best interest to ensure that there are robust scrutiny arrangements and transparency – policy is better when it is tested and they might not always be in the majority in the future.
The government has changed legislation to stop councils that don’t already have committee systems (Bristol & Sheffield) from using the committee system. So it would take a change in national legislation to allow BHCC to go back to a committee system.
No it wouldn’t as BHCC turned a committee system into a cabinet system without a public referendum and in the face of public and opposition councillor objections, ignoring a petition against it too.
Labour majority BHCC have abused their interpretation of a cabinet system to make their cabinet as unbalanced and unfair to opposition councillors and the electorate as they can.
Other councils run far fairer cabinet models which don’t seek to shut out opposing Councillors and their electorate, but continue to include them.
BHCC have invalidated their cabinet as in no shape or form can it be said to be democratic. It is a mockery.
…you don’t need a referendum, Tracy. Cabinets aren’t going to have opposition members in there, that’s also silly. Imagine having Nigel Farage in cabinet at Westminster, that’s just a silly notion.
BHCC did all this PRIOR to Starmer deciding he wanted councils to use a cabinet model, so Ms Sankey jumped the gun. This means she also shot herself in the foot in terms of setting something up which had no legal validity as she didn’t wait and she didn’t do anything properly.
Sorry, that’s not accurate either, councils where moving towards cabinets long before Starmer.
Bill was probably looking for his bull terrier Bullseye
This cabinet meeting went ahead without a LIVE webcast owing to ‘technical difficulties’ and needs to be declared null and void and re-run. It is not a valid hybrid meeting if half its mechanism is not working excluding viewers and participants from home.
Another silly thing to assert, Tracy. It was available to join as a hybrid meeting, it just wasn’t livestreamed to YouTube. Why on earth would you “declare it null and void” for that? 🙃
Benjamin, you seem to have plenty to say whenever Tracy comments, but very little to say about the substance of the issues she’s raising. Whether you agree with her or not, repeatedly dismissing her comments as “silly” without engaging with the actual points doesn’t add much to the discussion.
People can reasonably disagree about the Cabinet system, transparency, or the webcast issue. It’s more constructive to explain why you think someone is wrong than to make every exchange personal. A debate about council governance is more useful than a running commentary on individual commenters.
It sounds like Ms Sankey’s highly irregular £19m emergency accommodation contract with a non-approved supplier, pushed through on 2nd Jan 2026 – when most council officers were still on seasonal holiday – needs investigating. This alone could bridge the deficit.
Benjamin, you still haven’t answered the question about whether Brighton and Hove’s current arrangements offer the opportunity for scrutiny.
Under a Cabinet system it is often the case, although not always, that only the party with a majority is in the Cabinet and has a vote. But that is a different question from whether opposition members should be able to attend, speak, and scrutinise – which is what happens in Hastings and Lewes, both of which operate Cabinet systems.
The Westminster analogy doesn’t hold – the equivalent would be Parliament having all the select committees chaired by the political party in power and limiting the opposition to three minutes of representations per session, with no follow-up questions permitted and no access to resources like the House of Commons Library or the National Audit Office. That is closer to what Brighton and Hove has introduced.
The question I asked – which you have avoided engaging with – was not whether the cabinet system is lawful. It was whether it is operating here in Brighton and Hove in a way that provides meaningful scrutiny. That remains unanswered.
Respectfully, you might want to reread that, Toto.
Respectfully, you might want to concede Toto’s checkmate, Benjamin.
I’ve reread it. The question stands. Under Brighton and Hove’s constitution, opposition councillors get 15 minutes for questions at the start of the meeting, cannot ask follow-up questions, and have no active role after that. Nearby councils operating the same legal framework give opposition members far more meaningful access. Whether the approach Brighton and Hove Council takes constitutes meaningful scrutiny remains unanswered.
Cabinet ≠ select committee. You want to make a comparison to scrutiny panels to select committees, fine. But the former doesn’t work.
The Cabinet comparison was never made – neither by me nor by Tracy. The point was about scrutiny and oversight arrangements, not Cabinet membership. Your Nigel Farage comment was a response to Tracy’s observation that other councils run fairer cabinet models that include opposition members more meaningfully, which you conflated with opposition membership of the Cabinet itself. Nobody else suggested that – only you.
The relevant comparison is between Brighton and Hove’s scrutiny arrangements and those of nearby councils operating the same legal framework. In Hastings and Lewes, opposition members have structured, meaningful roles in scrutiny. In Brighton and Hove they do not. That remains the unanswered point. And that does have parallels with the role of Select Committees in Parliament.
And for what it is worth, there are numerous examples of Prime Ministers bringing opposition figures into government to work on specific issues – from wartime coalitions to more recent appointments of crossbench and opposition figures to specific review roles. The idea that any meaningful opposition involvement in governance is inherently doesn’t work does not reflect how British democracy actually works in practice.
Sorry, a complete misrepresentation.
A misrepresentation by bringing up Select Committees and Parliament examples that weren’t part of my original point at all. You’ve created a straw man argument by attributing to me to a comparison I have never made, then arguing against that false comparison.
It’s a classic debate tactic to make it easier to attack. My original point remains straightforward. Tracy’s claim that BHCC’s cabinet is “in no shape or form democratic” is extreme, and expecting opposition members in the Cabinet (like Nigel Farage in Westminster) would indeed be silly because that’s not how Cabinets work anywhere.
The Westminster comparison was yours, not mine – you introduced in your reply to Tracy above. The exact quote is: “Cabinets aren’t going to have opposition members in there, that’s also silly. Imagine having Nigel Farage in cabinet at Westminster, that’s just a silly notion.”
I responded to your comparison by pointing out that the equivalent in Parliament would be all select committees chaired by the governing party with no supplementary questions permitted. That is a direct response to your analogy, not a strawman.
The point about Hastings, Lewes – as well as other local authorities such as Eastbourne, Crawley and Worthing – all operating the same Cabinet based framework with better scrutiny arrangements – remains entirely unaddressed.
The question of whether Brighton and Hove’s current arrangements offer meaningful scrutiny has now been asked several times in this thread. That seems to be a question that you find difficult to engage with directly.
I’m going to focus on this first point before looking at anything else. Toto, you’re mixing up what was actually said. I was responding to Tracy’s specific claim that BHCC’s cabinet is “in no shape or form democratic” – not making any comparison to scrutiny committees. At risk of repeating myself, the point was simple, expecting opposition members in the Cabinet itself would be silly because that’s not how Cabinets work anywhere.
You’re now arguing about something I never said, and bringing up Select Committee examples that weren’t part of our exchange. Confused generation, I’m afraid.
Benjamin, I directly quoted you. ‘Confused generation’ is also a very odd phrase.
Maybe you could engage with the substance rather than deflecting? You are continuing to avoid my direct question about whether Brighton and Hove’s scrutiny arrangements are adequate rather than just meeting minimum legal requirements.
As I previously said the most relevant comparison is with other Cabinet-based local authority frameworks, including those locally like Hastings and Lewes. I have read the constitutions of Brighton and Hove and also the constitutions for other local authorities and there are key differences.
Here are some examples (there are quite a few):
– Scrutiny committees in other local authorities are chaired by the opposition and not the majority party, and they do not include members of the executive. This applies in Hastings, Lewes, Eastbourne, Crawley and Worthing – councils operating under the same legal framework, led by parties ranging from Green to Liberal Democrat to Labour.
– Opposition leaders and other named members are entitled to attend and speak throughout Cabinet meetings, not only during a limited slot at the start. In Lewes for example, the Leader of the opposition, the Deputy Leader, the Chair of the Policy and Performance Advisory Committee and the Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee are all entitled to attend and speak at any Cabinet meeting.
– Members of the public and councillors can ask supplementary questions at Cabinet in other councils. Brighton and Hove’s constitution explicitly prohibits them at Cabinet, Rule 15.4 in the Executive Procedure Rules states ‘no supplementary questions shall be permitted.’
– Scrutiny committees in other councils set their own work programmes and meet before Cabinet decisions are taken, so they can influence decisions rather than only review them afterwards.
The only Council I have found with similar arrangements to Brighton and Hove is Exeter – where there has also been criticism of the Executive ‘marking its own homework’. Maybe you could read some of the constitutional documents and come back to me on what you think the justification is for taking such a narrow approach to scrutiny in Brighton and Hove?
You’re still missing the point. I wasn’t discussing scrutiny arrangements at all – I was responding to Tracy’s specific claim that BHCC’s cabinet is “in no shape or form democratic.” My Nigel Farage analogy was about whether opposition members belong in the Cabinet itself, not about scrutiny committees. You continue to misrepresent this in a very confused generation.
You keep bringing up Hastings, Lewes, and scrutiny committee structures as if that’s what I was debating, but it’s not. Tracy made an extreme statement about the entire system lacking democratic legitimacy, and I responded to that specific claim.
If you want to discuss scrutiny arrangements, that’s a separate conversation. But don’t misrepresent what I actually said in response to Tracy’s undemocratic cabinet claim. You’re arguing against a position I never took.
You’ve now said that scrutiny arrangements are ‘a separate conversation.’ Scrutiny arrangements are not a separate issue, they are central to whether a Cabinet system operates democratically. That is precisely why Tracy’s comment and the question I’ve been asking (and you have repeatedly responded to) are connected, not separate.
This is the first direct acknowledgement from you in this thread that the question about whether Brighton and Hove’s scrutiny arrangements are adequate is a legitimate one – it is just apparently not one you’re prepared to engage with.
You’re unfortunately continuing to generate a misrepresentation to what I said again. It’s a classic strawman fallacy.
I simply stated I wasn’t discussing scrutiny arrangements in that specific reply to Tracy’s undemocratic cabinet claim – I didn’t acknowledge it as legitimate or illegitimate, I just said it wasn’t what I was talking about there. You’re now adding that I’m not prepared to engage with it. Not right either, but it is a separative conversation.
As far as i can see it is two gangs of lefty cretins squabbling about who cause the most damage to the once lovely towns of Hove and Brighton.
Benjamin TM’s determination to find an excuse to support closed-shop tyranny masquerading as democracy remains disturbing. Under both Nolan Principles of public life and Councillor Conduct standards, all Councillors have to treat each other fairly. It’s not optional. The Cabinet system brings this into conflict and is an unbalanced system which leads to unfair and unrepresentative decisions.
And that’s shifting the goalposts from what you originally said. I’m just highlighting the how your arguments, ironically considering the subject matter, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, as your then masquerade it as something more abstract. Some might describe that as performative or bad faith.
Even more so when I actually haven’t presented an opinion on the subject at any point in this article.
Benjamin, anyone reading this thread can see that you have expressed many ‘opinions’. You have described Cllr Sykes’s behaviour as ‘unprofessional’ and ‘unserious.’ You have offered comparative opinions about the professionalism of Green and Conservative group leaders. You have called Tracy’s comments ‘silly’ on multiple occasions. You have characterised her argument as ‘performative outrage’ and described it as coming from ‘a place of ignorance.’ You have expressed a view that opposition members in Cabinet would be ‘silly.’
Those are all opinions, and they’re all in this thread.
Tracy has sometimes framed her concerns in ways that aren’t legally precise. But her underlying concerns – that the cabinet system as operated in Brighton and Hove restricts information flows to opposition councillors, reduces public accountability, and falls below the standards adopted by comparable councils – are legitimate and well-evidenced. Identifying a legal imprecision in how a concern is expressed and then treating that as a complete answer to the concern is not engaging with the substance. It is a way of avoiding it.
The one opinion you have consistently declined to offer is whether Brighton and Hove’s scrutiny arrangements are adequate. On the issue of things that don’t hold up to scrutiny, that may be worth reflecting on.
That’s the risk of your “commenting style” (since we were talking about concessionary word choice). I never said I support “closed-shop tyranny masquerading as democracy” – Tracy made that up. I’ve not expressed a *specific* opinion on that *specific* topic either way. I note you actually agree with this.
Unfortunately, what you effectively saying is “Since you won’t tell me what you think about scrutiny arrangements, Tracy must be right that you support tyranny” – which is completely illogical, and something that I am sure you don’t mean at all.
I’ve seen Tracy’s comments for several years; she has shown she can be insightful, but then ends up saying silly things to be performative. This pattern of starting with specific claims then shifting to broader criticisms when challenged makes real discussion difficult.
Anyway, since you’re keen on talking about it, Toto, can scrutiny arrangements be made better? I agree with you! Even the perception of who chairs scrutiny panels, for example, is important – I get the perception of having the same political party chairing gives that perception, regardless of the accuracy of that perception. My personal opinion, is that scrutiny improves a good idea and prevents a bad one. That can be done by anyone. When we see Cllrs ask questions that can be answered by reading the first page, that’s the opposite of that.
As I said in another article, steel tempers steel.
I’m glad you’ve now engaged with the question, and glad to hear you agree with me. Good quality debate matters, and everyone should be able to challenge, ask questions, and feel their concerns are actually heard.
I’ve sat through scrutiny committee meetings where the chair only called witnesses who supported the council’s position, and was openly dismissive of those who raised concerns in deputations. That’s something I think this administration should be addressing. How things are done, and whether people feel heard, matters.
It’s a rather broad statement to debate without a specific example, because I’ve sat through scrutiny committee meetings where the chair has called a variety of witnesses who adjectively unsupported the council’s position. I think that again speaks to perception either way, at the risk of reiterating.
Finding the right answer in the right way? Miss either element and people feel dismissed.
Has Benjamin got a proper job?
Yes. Thanks for your question.