Yesterday I was upbeat and positive about the collaboration between Labour and the Greens. Tonight they are back at each other’s throats. This is how I see it. It was great that there was a shared approach to the Tory budget. Labour and Green councillors were joined by Lib Dem Paul Elgood and independent (former Lib Dem) David Watkins, in voting through some amendments. So far, so good.
It was right to amend the Tory budget, but that did not mean it was no longer a Tory budget, in spite of what the Grizzly One might say: “I am very disappointed that the Conservative budget proposal was voted down. It was, on the whole, excellent.” The tens of millions of cuts remained. Labour and Green councillors were then faced with a choice of what to do. Together with Elgood and Watkins, they had more than enough votes to throw the whole budget out. And there would have been enough time to review the Tory proposals and to come up with some alternatives.
But when push came to shove, all 13 Labour councillors abstained. All 13 Green councillors votes against the budget along with Watkins and Elgood. A truly courageous group of Labour councillors would have seen this as an opportunity to make a real stand against the ConDem Coalition. But it was not to be. The Tory budget, mildly amended, was comfortably carried. Andy Richards writes: “The opportunity which is being missed here by all of the non-Coalition councillors is to say to an increasingly weak and divided government, ‘we are not going to pass on your cuts’.”
There is a debate about whether it is ok to vote against a motion you have amended. It is no difference than abstaining if the vote goes in favour of a cuts budget. Dani, as always, speaks sense: “The amendments were just tinkering at the edges of a £23 million cuts package. They restored less than £3 million – welcome, but not enough to make the overall budget acceptable. Amending a motion you are intending to vote against is perfectly reasonable. It means you are saying that you don’t want to do what is proposed, but if you are defeated and it ends up being done, you would prefer it done in a different way.”
I entirely disagree with Ian Chisnall who writes: “If the Greens and Labour were not happy that the final budget was adequate they should have either tabled more robust amendements or tabled no amendments and voted against the unamended budget.” Wrong. It is right that Labour and Green try to make the best of a bad deal, but that doesn’t mean they then have to vote for that bad deal.
What will the consequences be? Immediately the prospect of any form of reconciliation between the two parties of the left has been lost, the likelihood of co-operation after May’s local elections gone. The blame game has begun. Labour activists accuse the Greens of being unrealistic, the Greens blame Labour for selling out. While I tend to take the latter view, the one party that will be laughing all the way to the polling stations is the Conservative Party. They have their headline – a Council Tax being voted down – along with the defeated cut in the cost of parking permits. Geoffrey Theobald ended with some egg on his face over the cycle path, but that is small change compared to the vitriol that is being expressed between the two opposition parties.
I am sorry not to have responded to the record number of comments left today, but the debate rages on in the Comments section of my last post which gave my knee-jerk reaction immediately after the end of the Council meeting.
Filed under: Council Elections 2011, Politics | Tagged: Andy Richards, Brighton, Budget, City Council, Council Tax, cuts, Dani, David Watkins, Geoffrey Theobald, Hove, Ian Chisnall, Momma Grizzly, Paul Elgood, Rachael Bates | 9 Comments »