tories oh dear
BREAKING - Secret recordings of Surrey Council's "gentleman's agreement" with government over the 15% council tax rise on @BBCSurrey shortly
it seems once again the fraudsters i power are looking after their own
Posted by jeffrey davies [86.17.83.77] on 07 March 2017
The Tory “mafia” of Surrey do not require Goodfella-types to go door to door, harassing residents like a traditional protection-racket. The protection has already been purchased, by virtue of postcode. According to BBC News and other outlets, Surrey Council’s intended referendum on raising council tax by 15% to fund social care has been abandoned, amid a quagmire of intrigue and alleged backroom deals with allied Tory government.
In the interests of disclosure, I should probably admit I’m a resident of Surrey. Nor shall I deny I’m immensely relieved the 15% hike is apparently off the table. When news circulated that Surrey planned to lash all residents with three times the government’s proposed increase to council tax, I was very anxious. I accept I live in a borough far wealthier than most, and some may well see residents as fair game for that reason alone. But to assume there aren’t people struggling financially in Surrey, is a mistake. Yes, the leafy county has a far larger proportion of wealthy sorts and political classes than most, but that’s definitely of little comfort to those who don’t fit that niche. And despite a rather large contingent of privileged caucasians who support the Tories and UKIP, there are also a sparse few of us behind ‘enemy lines’ who identify with liberal and socialist politics.
Backroom deals
Any personal relief at escaping the hike is very much tempered by sense that the positive result was achieved by nefarious means. And quite possibly at the expense of areas without the same network of Tory “mafia”.
The Guardian reported that David Hodge, leader of Surrey Council, was secretly recorded speaking to Conservative colleagues about personal meetings with communities secretary, Sajid Javid, and chancellor Phillip Hammond. He is quoted as saying they reached a “gentleman’s agreement”. Hodge would not disclose terms of the deal, only that it undermined any necessity to increase council tax by as much as 15%. He even added he had “something in writing”.
Both Javid and Hammond denied any hint of a ‘sweetheart deal’ for the affluent borough. Jeremy Corbyn was quick to pounce upon the issue, ambushing Theresa May the next day in parliament, physically brandishing damning text messages from the Surrey leader to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Texts in which Hodge states the “numbers are acceptable” to cancel the referendum, and that he wants to “kill it off”. Unsurprisingly, Corbyn’s pertinent challenge was scarcely reported by the mainstream and right-wing press. (Much like the acutely significant election results in Northern Ireland.)
The mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, also commented:
“It would be absolutely disgraceful if it were proven the government had bought off their political friends at the expense of poorer cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Birmingham, which have been hit far harder by cuts in funding.”
In the same article, The Guardian also stated:
“After six hours of refusing to comment, the DCLG admitted it had confirmed to Surrey county council that it could take part in a trial allowing the council to retain business rates to fund social care from 2018. It insisted this did not amount to a special deal.”
It might seem highly questionable that this pilot scheme suddenly materialised to justify the alleged ‘backroom deal’ for Surrey’s social care. And even if the scheme will be made available to all cities and boroughs, as the government now claims, it stands to reason that businesses in affluent areas will raise considerably more revenue than poorer ones. Hardly fair at all.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 10 March 2017
