We support long-term investment in front-line services that people want, at a cost they can afford. In our view this is far more sensible, and maintains a more sustainable financial position, than the short-term approach adopted by the current administration.   We believe that the finances of the council must be both sustainable and stable: that way we can plan future budgets much better.  

 

So, in order to build on the solid foundation of financial stability that we laid when we ran the Council, we proposed alternatives to the Conservative budget, which required an increase in Borough Council Tax of just 2.7%.     We planned to use part of the increase to fund short-term costs, and to meet known higher costs in future years. This would have cost an extra 7p per week for the average council taxpayer in the Borough.

 

Under Labour leadership, the borough council planned efficiency savings year after year, to ensure the books would balance in the long term.   The current administration has taken those efficiency gains, simply to reduce Council Tax, for one year only.   It is our view that this must inevitably lead either to cuts in services or larger increases in Council Tax in future years.

 

 

For example, why are car park charges being increased a year earlier than we had planned?   This will cost many people much more than the council tax refund of just over a pound for each household that the Conservatives have approved for the year ahead.   Anyone using the new pay and display car parks in Crewe later this year will pay this back at the first visit.

 

The "brown bin" scheme is expected to break even in Crewe and the urban areas.   So why should urban householders without gardens have to pay for garden waste to be collected from rural areas where composting should be the norm?   And why are the people of Crewe being asked to hand out £57,000 next year to the parish councils?   There are parish councils that do not raise any income, yet they are being given cash they do not want.  

 

The Council "Blitz Team", which is so valued by local residents, was introduced by the previous Labour-led administration and we agree with the extra spending on Streetwise.    But we do not agree with the decision to fund a rural litter picking and dog-bin emptying service in our view this service should cover the whole borough.   We believe that the parish councils would much rather see an extension to the parish compact arrangement, under which they can employ local handymen and women for this purpose.   Such a plan could have been trialled if our proposal to keep the £90,000 annual budget for public realm improvements had been accepted.   The loss of this budget will hit initiatives like Britain in Bloom, gateway and corridor improvements around Crewe and Nantwich, and reduce the ability to trial new ideas.  

 

Labour set up the alley gate schemes which have helped cut crime and vandalism in those areas where they are introduced.   But the Conservatives turned down the maintenance budget needed for their upkeep, so they could save £3,000 a year. 

 

The Conservatives declined to consider the employment of a part-time Affordable Housing Officer. They rejected investment in the Safe at Home one year project, which could draw funds from elsewhere, and is being considered for introduction across Cheshire.   They declined to pay for the staff needed to develop housing and homelessness strategies, which are required by law next year, and did not or could not say how they intend to meet those obligations.     Yet they were happy to increase the budget for councillors' allowances by over £12,000 a year ahead of inflation, so they can have more members on the Executive Board

 

In our view the Conservatives have shown in this budget that their priority is to make short term headlines.   They claim that the council finances are now in safe hands.   We say that some of the choices made in this budget are clear evidence to the contrary.

 

In the year ahead we would like to see all members involved in the review of council expenditure.   We see this as a key task for the appropriate scrutiny committee.   This inclusive approach will place greater demands on elected members, but in the end will produce better budgets.   Labour is committed to securing genuine value for money, protecting front-line services and investing in long-term improvement.   We invite other parties on the council to agree with this and start work on meeting the challenges ahead.

 

Contact:           Cllr Maurice Jones

                        E-mail: cllr.maurice.jones@crewe-nantwich.gov.uk

                       

                        Cllr Steve Hogben

                        Tel:  01270 255749  

                        Email: cllr.steve.hogben@crewe-nantwich.gov.uk

 

February 2007