DavidI can only do my best to assure you that the Community Group would never and probably could never instruct its members to vote in such a way as to make a point whilst seeking to bring about a particular desired outcome. We were accused of doing this over the debate on councillor allowances but for those who know the facts (I believe it was carried on the Mayor's casting vote) it would have been impossible for us to have been sure how all the other votes would have gone on that night. That kind of politics we leave to the politicians (you will recall it happened during the big John Aird House debate some years back). We just don't operate in that way.Remember there are now several independents from different groups as well as the Lib Dems and an out-of-favour Labour councillor.The ICG way is that, whilst we don't have a whip, we attempt in the first instance to reach a common position even if it means making a few compromises along the way. We recognise that being able to deliver votes as a bloc gives us more clout. But, on occasions, conscience has led individual members to deviate from that ideal and on councillor allowances I just urged my colleagues to vote with their hearts and see where that took us.As things stand I can't promise that there won't be a split vote amongst community councillors on the night, but contrary to what you seem to be saying the outcome of the Scrutiny and other consultation processes is likely to make a big difference. If we are given a clear indication that the proposed savings will hurt us at the frontline then that is likely to influence how the Lib Dems will vote, the West Area Independents are no longer supportive of the administration and without wishing to prejudge him Councillor Connelly is more likely than not to oppose such a budget under such circumstances.I like to think I can be tactful when the occasion demands but the things I said at Borough Council on Tuesday are now a matter of public record. I don't hold anything against our coalition partners for playing politics with the 0% thing - it is a very big part of what Conservatism is about, there are elections approaching and they want to get their message out sooner rather than later and they would have been very frustrated at not being able to do so because half a dozen jaggedy-arsed independents had a different take on things. That is how politics works. But obviously once they had publicly declared, repeatedly and through several channels, that the administration's policy was something it wasn't our rebuttal of that also needed to be public.What has concerned me more is the eagerness of the corporate council to promote the Conservative message, even where there is a clear difference between the two parties to the coalition, at the expense of ours. The first and probably most shocking example of this was the article in HM Magazine on Mogden which not only sought to justify the Conservative position but even tried to associate us with it.The announcement on the home page of the council website of the commitment to freeze Council Tax come what may (which I note is still there in spite of my comments on Tuesday) was just another manifestation of the same policy. As far as the Community Group is concerned a lot will hinge upon whether the corporate council relents on this unacceptable interference in the internal politics of the coalition or whether it decides to carry on challenging us to do our worst. And, if the latter, whether our partners are prepared to allow this state of affairs to continue. The first indications, from last night's SDC - the body language rather than simply the positions taken, which are of course a quasi-legal rather than political matter - are not good.David, in a consultation everybody has a role to play. The fact that you are no longer a councillor does not mean you don't have an opinion, and as somebody who has been involved in politics for a long time you will know how to get that opinion across. Your last sentence would seem to acknowledge that you realise this. Whatever you may think of the proposals that are being made, it cannot be denied that good advance notice has been given and that an opportunity for challenge is being offered which was seldom if ever available under the old administration. For that the Leader of the Council deserves some credit.The big question of course is how that challenge is responded to, whether arguments against are based on facts rather than emotion, and whether the inevitable protests are driven by those facts or simply by self-interest and/or political interest. I have to say that in previous years some (though not all) of the representations that I have received from within the teaching profession seem to been actually designed to provoke us into taking an unsympathetic position. Those who receive the services we are discussing and who stand to be affected by any decision to make savings are not well served by these smug and selfish individuals.The last concern I have is how your party would respond to any indication by the Community Group that we were prepared to accept a small Council Tax increase in order to protect frontline services. Current Labour Party policy as I understand it is also to set a 0% increase, and leaflets distributed in my area have been headed "Ann Keen says cut the Council Tax!" and have taken the administration to task for not having been ruthless enough, while your people on the council have at the exact same time argued against making savings! Looking at the way that some of your people behave on this forum you must surely agree that, were we to oppose the proposed savings to the education budget, they are more than capable of conducting a campaign based upon the accusation that the ICG is the party (sic) of high tax. That, too, is something we need to factor into our deliberations.Like I said before David there is everything to play for. I just hope the inane politicking that we have witnessed here recently isn't allowed by you and your leadership to frustrate the debate.
Phil Andrews ● 6002d