Tomorrow is the 2012 Budget in the UK, which comes at a time of low growth, austerity, high jobless rates, almost zero interest rates and high inflation.

There is lots of talk about what the Chancellor might be doing today including whether or not he will cut the top rate of tax 50% for the richest people in the country. Apparently these people are deterred from coming to the UK and creating jobs due to the perception that “Britain is not open for business“ and we are ”anti entrepreneurial”. Whether there are any facts to back this I don’t know but it would be interesting to see evidence either way.

I don’t really care if they reduce this tax level or not as long as an independent organisation can show that doing so will bring in more tax revenue and create jobs than by having it.

There might be some truth when people like John Redwood, the right wing Tory MP says in he wants to see rich people pay more tax and the way to do this is by reducing tax rates so that less money is spent by those rich enough to afford expensive lawyers on getting round the existing and very complicated tax laws.

Most company owners don’t pay the high tax rate anyway because they just pay themselves in other ways or though dividends and capital gains which has a rate much less tax rate than the current 50% top rate of income tax.

Therefore if I had to choose a budget for tomorrow I would do the following:

1. Scrap the existing tax code which is far too complicated with too many loopholes for those rich and clever enough to exploit and make a simple code in which:

• No one pays tax until they earn over a certain threshold like £10 or £20k. The coalition want to raise the threshold to £10k and they are on the right track by removing people out of paying tax at the lower end of the scale. These are the people who are reliant on all the bus routes, libraries and other public services that are being cut at the moment
• If a flat tax can be proven to bring in more tax revenue than a progressive rate then I am all for what works. I have no ideological problem with a flat rate if it can bring in more revenue. We need more money from the richest in our country and if a flat tax prevents them from using offshore accounts and loopholes then I am happy to try it.
• Close every tax loophole available. A simple and fair tax code with no loopholes to be exploited will ensure the richest cannot escape tax though their lawyers and clever avoidence schemes.

2. Make sure any company that wants to do business in this country pays tax in this country. No post boxes in the Cayman Islands as the Company HQ. A company who wants our huge market should have to set up a UK subsidiary and all revenue make in this country should be taxed at our rates and stay in our country.

3. Incentivise companies who take on any of the following people with tax breaks and other schemes.

• Long term unemployed.
• People with disabilities.
• People who have just come out of prison or are on the way to spending a life in and out of prison e.g gang members.
• Young people who have not had a job since leaving college or school for a year.
• Older people who have not worked for a while, have no private pension and are too young for the state pension.

4. Totally nationalise the banks we own the majority stake in and run them for the good of the nation. Profits are retuned to the treasury or given out as loans to more “riskier” small business who require funding. However the key aim should be to ensure that any company wanting to expand and create jobs but cannot currently get funding can get the money they need.

5. Parts of the country heavily reliant on Public Sector jobs that are being cut should have large amounts of government investment including incentives for private companies. Companies willing to relocate or base their factories and offices in Wales, Scotland the the North should get tax breaks at the very least.

6. Any company who hires a currently unemployed British citizen should be given a 1-2 year national insurance holiday. Get British people back working and make it worth UK companies while hiring them over cheap foreign labour.

7. Keep some pre-election promises by re-balancing the fuel tax escalator so that as the price of petrol rises the amount of tax going to the treasury decreases, keeping the overall price stable for the customer. As petrol speedily heads towards£1.50 a litre with most of it going to the Treasury the amount of fuel tax as an overall percentage should be reduced as the cost of oil rises.

8. Give every tax paying worker in the country a tax rebate of £1000-£2000 in the form of a voucher that can be redeemed in any shop in the country. The previous VAT cut wasn’t even noticed by shoppers, especially at Christmas time when every shop reduces their stock by over 20% anyway. Cash can be saved or used for other means but a voucher with a use by date would ensure the tax payers who have basically bailed this country out of the bankster incurred mess are repaid as well as stimulating the economy by ensuring the money is spent in shops that badly need the business.

9. Scrap Trident - a nuclear missile system we cannot even use without US say so and their GPS guidance system, so in all likelihood will never be used anyway. Instead spend the multiple billions a replacement would cost on shoring up our overstretched armed forces. If we are going to continue to ask them to fight war after war we should ensure they have the best equipment, proper housing, proper help when they return limbless and mentally distressed as well as giving a sign to other countries like Iran and Israel that responsible nations that already have nukes are prepared to give them up.

10. Invest heavily in public transport without making it so expensive to drive a car that taking a bus or train looks cheap in comparison.

There can be no proper private competition on a railway – no two trains can run the same line at the same time. Public transport should be run for the good of the nation and any taxes spare from the multiple taxes on motorists (road tax, petrol tax, vat etc) should be used to make public transport cheap and a viable option not a second choice people are forced to use for whatever reason. If other countries can do this we surely can.

Those are just 10 points I’ve just thought of whilst watching TV. I’m sure with another five minutes I could come up with at least another 10 more.

Will Boy George Osborne look after his core constituents and screw the poor or are we really ”all in this together” like we continually get told. Only time will tell.

Lets wait and see what happens tomorrow.

We listened to the chancellor of the exchequer Budget speech and whilst we welcome measures to reduce tax and to encourage growth, it is not enough. The Budget today was all cockle-a-doo-doo nonsense. Just nothing more than a small sticky plaster over the devestating financial problems that this country faces. The Budget today was typical give with one hand, take with the other hand. The poor got poorer and the rich got richer under the Budget today.

We were given exclusive access to a secret cabinet meeting dossier. The dossier is from a financial review meeting held last month at Downing Street. The meeting was chaired by the Prime Minister David Cameron.

The secret dossier that we recieved from a government insider.

As you see, the dossier resembles child art work. It is obvious our Prime Minister is clueless about how to solve our country financial problems.

Is this the best that our Prime Minister can produce?

Obviously, our PM is clueless and is not under control of our country problems. As you can see, our very own PM is doodling in his office!!!!

While our PM doodles, the country finances are in a mess. Have a look at this chart.

This chart clearly explains the problems of our country finances.

So what is the solution to the Europe debt crisies, high taxes, the ever rising unemployment, increasing cost of living etc…? Well, the Monkey Party has the solution.

We have a plan for growth!

We have a plan for jobs!

We have a plan for tax cuts!

So what is our plan?

Our plan is simple, we are going to send a cuddly toy to the surface of moon by the end of the decade and safely bring him back to planet Earth.

We will send a cuddly toy to the surface of the moon by the end of the decade and will safely bring him back.

That is our plan for growth!

Let us explain….

By sending a British cuddly toy to the moon, this will require research into the sciences. We will develop new technologies that we can trade with overseas. Oversea countries will want to buy our new advances.

Our country national debt is £4.6 trillion. We can only pay off this debt if we generate new industries in our country. The cuddly toy moon landing project will produce the new industies that our country needs. With new supersonic engines and super conductor computers, we will be selling “Made in UK” products all over the world.

The prototype moon landing module for our proposed cuddly toy moon landing project. Technology developed from this Airfix model will be traded overseas.

Unemployment in the UK is currently 2.8 million. The proposed cuddly toy moon landing project requires a work force of approximately 2.8 million workers. Everyone will have a job when the Monkey Party is in power.

It is forecast that the cuddly toy moon landing project will cost £2.4 trillion. That is a lot!

So how are we going to pay for the cuddly toy moon landing project?

Are we going to raise taxes I hear you cry. NO, NO, NO and absolutly not!

We will not raise taxes for the cuddly toy moon landing project.

Read my lips, no more tax rises.

Instead, we will cull Tory MPs in Parliament. It has been reported that Tory MPs are claiming £2.4 trillion in coffee expenses in the Houses of Parliament coffee shop. So, we will cull all elected Tory MPs and the saved money will be diverted to the cuddly toy moon landing project.

So as you can clearly see, the cuddly toy moon landing project is affordable without the need for tax rises.

The investment in to this project will generate £9.7 trillion by 2020. That is more than enough to pay off our national debt of £4.6 trillion. The £5.1 trillion extra will be use to pay for tax cuts for everyone. YES! EVERYONE – rich or poor, we will all get tax cuts.

VAT reduced to 2.5%.

Income tax reduced to 10%

The success from the cuddly toy moon landing project will put the GREAT back into Britain. Oversea countries will continue to trade with us, buying our new technologies and science.

This chart demonstrates the predicted growth of our GDP after the cuddly toy moon landing project.

This chart clearly shows how the UK GDP will accelerate after the cuddly toy moon landing project.

Vote for the Monkey Party in the 2015 General Elections and put a monkey into Parliament.

Put the cuddly toy on the moon and see the change.

Lets get Britain growing again.

The Monkey Party secretary

Our team of financial experts from the Monkey Party will be analyzing the Budget review as it is read out. We expect as per usual, that the Budget will be a load of crap and horse poo. At 1500 hours on Wednesday the 21st, we the Monkey Party will be presenting our very own Budget review that will highlight our plan to help to revitalise the devestating country finances. We at the Monkey Party have the answers to the Europe debt problems, we have the plans to help businesses grow and we at the Monkey Party have the ability to cut taxes for ALL.

Our Budget review will be online at 1500 hours on Wednesday.

Our wee monkey is busy studying the country finances on his laptop.

N.B. The Monkey Party is the fastest growing policical party in UK. We were formed in 2010. In the 2010 General Elections, we got 2 votes (not bad for our first elections). Then in 2011, we achieved 5 votes in the Scottish Elections – that is a 150% increase in our share of votes.

The Monkey Party believes that a cuddly toy monkey will be a better Prime Minister than any of the usual LIBLABCON nonsense PMs.

Vote Monkey and put a stuffed one into power.

The Monkey Party secretary

The stories about our wee monkey travels around the world is bringing in new bloggers each day.

We will also be bringing you the Monkey Party response to the 2012 budget report by the coalition government next week. The Monkey Party is the fastest growing political party in the UK.

Don’t forget that we are running our 10000th hitter competition for person that makes the 10000th hit to win a packet of monkey nuts so keep logging on!

We will of course keep you all up to date of Sgt. Monkey gossip and adventures.

The webmaster team

The 2012 Budget Book reflects the final budget that City Council passed on December 1, 2011. The budget breaks down the spending for each department, the source of funds, and the number of personnel for each department. You can also compare how spending by department has changed over the past few years. It is a very large and detailed document, so if you have any questions about this document, please contact Nick Kindel at nolacpp@gmail.com.

So far we have had the surprise Labour Budget at its last Cabinet meeting on the 13th February, which was then rescinded by the new Conservative/Lib Dem Cabinet on the 21st February.

Labour councillors then “called-in” the decision by the Conservative/Lib Dem Cabinet of the 21st February to rescind their earlier Labour Budget recommendation to Council and the Budget procedure chosen by the Conservative/Lib Dem Cabinet. This call-in was decided at the Council Excellence meeting on Tuesday 28th February. This call-in failed mainly because Bill Norman said that Cabinet recommendations to Council from Cabinet weren’t subject to call-in as in his view it wasn’t an Executive decision, just a recommendation so Labour have tabled an amendment to the Budget procedure tonight.

Confused yet?

However in more local news the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee of Cllr Steve Niblock, Cllr Mike Hornby and Cllr Don McCubbin decided yesterday to turn down an application for an off-licence at 46 Hoylake Road. The reasons given were the objections of Merseyside Police (both Sgt Jenkins and Inspector McGregor were against it as they thought it would lead to increased crime and disorder).

The committee also had serious concerns about the integrity of the person who’d made the application for the licence and his alleged association with criminal activities. Trading Standards also spoke during the meeting about how they had seized counterfeit goods from the person applying for a premises licence.

The Subcommittee also felt the person applying displayed no understanding of the licensing objectives, despite previous involvement with other licensed premises, one of which had had its licence revoked due to violent crime. The issue of under age sales was also given as a reason by the subcommittee.

If you’d like to come to the Budget meeting tonight (1st March) it starts at 6.15pm in the Council Chamber at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Wirral, CH44 8ED .

Tempis fugit.

Readers of my previous blog (and there are regularly just under 10 a day) may have left it wondering the relevance of its inclusion on this website.  If you recall, it implied that four men: him, him, him and him (but not Kim) would present the, or respond to the, contents of a red box, with a black door involved at some point in the proceedings.  It may have been a little confusing.  A little clue was provided in the mention of a report.

This blog aims to add clarity to the previous blog and to explain its relevance to developers, planners and ecologists.  So I would encourage you to read on.  The contents of the red box is of course, the 2012 budget; the annual event where the Government, or rather the Second Lord of the Treasury (currently George Osborne), stands by the despatch box and details the Government’s spending plans for the next financial year and information on what taxes go up (boooo!) and which may go down (hurrah!).  There will inevitably be more booos than hurrahs.  The budget will be delivered on the 21st March.

As it happens, the 21st March 2012 will find me in Birmingham attending my professional institute’s spring conference on Planning and Biodiversity.  It also happens to coincide with the scheduled publication of the much debated and much awaited National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  And it also happens that one of the ’hims’ (Greg Clark) is attending the conference to give a keynote speech.  I am sure he is looking forward to spending 20 minutes or so in front of several hundred ecologists.

With less than three weeks to go, the final version of the NPPF is the culmination of approximately four months waiting since the consultation on the draft document closed in October 2011.   Readers who follow this blog and others (such as Andrew Lainton’s blog or the Grassland Trust’s blog or the National Trust’s blog or Colin Wiles’ postings, or Steve Hilditch’s blog) may like to remind themselves why the NPPF has come about, what it is all about and the potential ramifications (this blog provides a real example).  If you have 30 minutes to spare, this video may be worth watching too; and I wouldn’t mind saying that reading this and this and finally this will provide you with some additional background and thoughts on the NPPF.

One of the reasons promoted by the Government for replacing much of the planning policy and guidance with this abbreviated document is to get the economy back on its feet.  This will be good news for you, good news for me, certainly good news for them and good news for everyone…or at least that is what the Government would like us all to believe.  But is this well-intentioned desire best served through significant changes to the planning system?

A report on the cost and benefits of the NPPF (by Vivid Economics)

The report posed the question:

“Is the planning system holding back economic growth?”

Section 6 of the report provides an answer.

It opens by stating:

While it can be difficult to quantify the costs imposed by the planning system and rigorously isolate the effects of planning versus other influences, for particular impacts of the planning system, robust, high-quality estimates of the gross costs are available

This, despite a 2003 House of Commons’ report stating that this was not possible.  So what, if anything, has changed in the intervening period?  The report states that there has been more research that has attempted to identify and separate how planning influences the economy but [my emphasis], this evidence is limited:

• they cover only some of the effects identified in the framework;
• they are often for a specific geographical area, firm, or industry, so are not necessarily representative or readily scaleable to the national level;
• in some areas for which there is quantitative research, it is difficult to be confident in the magnitude of the estimated impacts of planning itself; and
• the best evidence available so far is arguably for the effects of the town centre first policy on retail productivity, which is not central to the policy change now being considered.

The report went on to conclude that “…there is no evidence available that planning has large, economy-wide effects on productivity or employment“.  However, it should also be stated that there is limited research on the benefits [my emphasis] of the planning system; so some caution ought to be applied to the conclusion highlighted in this paragraph.

Nevertheless, given that the Government expects the planning reforms to bring forward development and create employment, the report did not think that this would be the case in the short term.  However, it did recognise that further work would be needed to tease out the finer details and interpretations, especially when it come to identifying any benefits.

So what does this mean for developers, planners and ecologists (particularly those in the consultancy sector) in the context of employment, productivity or jobs?  Here are some of my thoughts:

• Developers

The NPPF as currently understood will come in to effect sometime after March 2012.  There is currently no plan to phase it in; i.e. it will immediately replace existing planning policy.  If so, will developers hold back on developing until the enforcement date is published, sensing an easier regime to do business in?  If this were the case, then it could be expected that there would be several weeks or months of relative inactivity – not much good news here for unemployed construction workers.  Alternatively, developers may continue as planned (the ‘business as usual approach’).  In which case, would not their development activity be independent of the NPPF; and thus productivity proceed a long a path already determined?  Any new jobs or money in to the economy would happen regardless.  In this regard, the report considers that the NPPF is unlikely to have a significant influence on developer’s behaviour.

• Planners

For planners, the arrival of the NPPF and how they could influence the economy would be driven by developers’ activities and intentions.  The wider effects, in terms of nature conservation and biodiversity would to some extent be dependent on the status of local plans within the local planning authority (LPA) that the development is proposed.  For those LPAs where a local plan exists, then the decisions can be judged against local policy.  However, where LPAs do not have an adopted local plan, the ‘presumption in favour of development’ would apply as the plan would be ‘absent’ (or ‘silent’?) in the terminology of the NPPF.  At the time of writing, I am unsure as to the difference between a ‘silent’ plan and an ‘absent’ one – does anyone else know?  In which case, nature conservation and biodiversity could have a raw deal.

• Ecologists

At a national level, the NPPF, it would seem, has removed protection for biodiversity in general.  This may well be good news for developers (less to consider and action) though the LPA’s local plan may create variation from one location to the next.  So arguably, there could be less need for ecologists in consultancy roles if a ‘hard-line’ is taken.  But this may lead to challenges post-submission from objectors and stakeholders who conceive that there is discrepancy or tension between case-law and legislation – which will always trump policy.  So whilst there may be economic savings up front, this may actually be a false economy as the money ‘saved’ may have to be spent rebutting objections; some of which may require ecologists presenting the evidence ‘for’ or ‘against’.  So may be it would be better to consider biodiversity in general up front, at least as a due diligence exercise.  This would be a cost effective option and would also support the Government’s other objectives on nature conservation (see here for a review).  But perhaps only (court) time will tell?

So where does this leave the NPPF?  The Department of Communities and Local Government Committee recommended that the NPPF be phased in, allowing LPAs to finalise their local plans. This would allow time to consider the new policy and build in protection for nature conservation and biodiversity at a local level.  This may also allow meeting local needs within the meaning of section 88 of the Localism Act 2011 (see this explanatory note for more information on section 88).

If so, then we may eventually end up with the status quo.  So back to where we were in June 2011 then!

Will it be fruitful enough for the aam aadmi to enjoy the following days of the year or will it be sour enough to blame the congress govt once again and continue their job.

One of the most expected and cheerful change will be the increasing of the exemption limit.It is believed that the increase will be to Rs 2 lakh from the current limit of Rs 1.8 lakh.Though the expectation from people is huge , govt will not satisfy them with a drastic change.

And also we are hearing news like the increase in exemption limit on housing loans as well.Currently the exemption limit is 1.5 lakh from the taxable income which will be paid against interest for house loan taken , this will be raised to 2.5 – 3 lakh.This will be a boon to middle class people as interest rates on housing loan have increased.

Though there are opinions like the limit should be increased for principal amount of house loan also , budget 2012 will not have any change in principal side .

Write your opinions and demands on budget 2012.Also state whether the figures are fine to convince the public.

Thanks for reading.

There were two options to decide between. The first option was whether to accept a one-off Council Tax Freeze grant for 2012/2013 which equated to what they would have gained from a 3 percent rise in the police precept on the Council Tax bills for Merseyside residents. The second option was to reject the Council Tax Freeze grant and increase the Council Tax precept by 3 percent for Merseyside residents.

Neither option made any difference to the 2012/2013 budget, but did to budgets from 2013/2014 onwards.

The Chair welcomed people to the reconvened meeting. He said they wouldn’t go through the whole report again. He asked for a proposal.

It was proposed to reject the Council Tax Freeze grant for 2012/2013 and increase the Merseyside Council Tax police precept by 3 percent compared to its 2011/2012 level.

It was moved as an amendment to accept the Council Tax freeze grant for 2012/2013 and not increase the Merseyside Council Tax police precept for 2012/2013 compared to its 2011/2012 level.

A councillor spoke for the amendment and against the motion. Cllr Kate Wood spoke for the amendment and against the motion. The Chair commented that the Merseyside Police Authority sets the precept independently of the Merseyside local authorities who collected the Council Tax on their behalf.

Janet referred to a story on the BBC website. She had asked for a copy of the press release and felt the BBC had mixed it up as they had used a figure of £2 million instead of £1.865 million. She also didn’t understand the BBC article suggested there would be a loss of forty officers, which made out there would be a deficit when the revenue Budget for 2012/2013 was neutral between the two options.

She had an issue with the survey using survey monkey that the Police Authority had done. She said it was biased as option 1 was for putting up the Council Tax precept and that people could vote in it as many times as they liked, she herself had voted three times. She said although the proposed increase was small,would some residents would have to cut their heating bill to afford the increased Council Tax.

The Chair asked the Chief Executive to clarify.

The Chief Executive referred people to table 14 on page 45. He pointed out the issue was with the 2013/2014 Budget, not 2012/2013. He explained that the issue was never 2012/2013. The issue was what happened after 2012/2013 to the one year Council Tax Freeze grant.

He continued by pointing out in 2013/2014 if the Council Tax Freeze grant was accepted, then it led to a £2 million gap, as the grant would be dropped out of the Budget for 2013/2014. This meant the Council Tax base for 2013/2014 would be reduced [compared to increasing the precept for 2012/2013] and the effect of the Council Tax Freeze Grant was close to £2 million.

Referring to the survey, Paul Johnson explained that it had been sent out to libraries and they had made it so that more that each person could vote more than once. He said they had been criticised on Thursday for reorganising a meeting so quickly, which gave little opportunity to the public of Merseyside. They had achieved some helpful information, but if Authority members thought it was not up to scratch they were at “liberty to ignore” it.

The Chair said he was not going to give a summay out unless he was asked for it. In the short period of time he only intended to introduce it if there was another stalemate. It had been raised, but it did have limitations.

An Authority Member referred to a “lot of misunderstanding”. They then referred to Liverpool City Council deciding on the Council Tax levels and the effect on them of receiving or refusing the Council Tax Freeze Grant. The Member thought the effect over five years for the Police Budget could come to Ł9 million.

The Member referred to the “poorly paid on benefits” who had faced “Housing Benefit cuts” when “nobody gave a monkeys”. He then went onto refer to Working Tax Credit cuts and Winter Fuel Allowance reductions from Ł250 to Ł150.

He was arguing that the 3% rise would not lead to greater numbers of officers on the frontline as in previous years. However it would allow injured and ill officers to be tacken off their backroom jobs and made redundant, which would lead to a longterm saving.

This could lead to [approximately] forty new officers. If they were not going to recruit now then in a couple of years there would be a big gap and experienced officers who needed to pass their skills and advice on would have left Merseyside Police.

That’s 35 days until this man, stands in front of a black door, and holds up a red box.

The contents of this red box are unknown, save except for the topic.

But this blog is not attempting to predict the contents of the red box.  Nor is it going to try and predict how this man will respond to the the first man, or if there will be any tension between this man and the first man?  I’ll leave this up to political and economic commentators.

But I wonder if the first man will have read this report?  And will the second man mention it in his response?  And will a fourth man read it too?

And if you’re wondering what the relevance of this blog is, perhaps you need to read this, this or this.

Come back in a few days to read a bit more.

A debate on the HESPE report and AKA report was adjourned partly due to the HESPE report not being ready (despite an earlier assurance it would be) and councillors grumbling over all the blacked out sections of the AKA report that they hadn’t been allowed to see.

Cllr Foulkes felt this wasn’t fair. He said he was worried about justice and claimed he would be sacked before getting a chance to debate the report [Ed - it's an office he held, not employment so he can't be "sacked" just voted out].

He wanted the whole thing adjourned to the 20th February and that he would be “seeking independent legal advice”. The Mayor decided to hear the no confidence motions in him anyway. Cllr Harney and Cllr Green both outlined why they wanted Cllr Foulkes to go.

Cllr Phil Davies gave an impassioned defence of Cllr Foulkes, stating that he “doesn’t believe it’s right or just to place the entire blame on Steve Foulkes”. He pointed out how the issues dated back to 1997, through three different leaders, two chief executives and various Directors of Adult Social Services. He said there was a strong argument that all political parties on the Council should take the blame as to why they didn’t take action or ask questions.

He said the “nasty, personal attacks on Steve” were “bang out of order” and that Labour would not take part in a three party Cabinet leaving the Tories and Lib Dems to run it as a Coalition or collaboration.

Cllr John Hale finished his speech by saying, “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!” which sums up a lot of what the Conservative councillors had to say.

Impassioned speeches were made in defence of Cllr Foulkes, Cllr Kenny pleaded with them to wait until the May elections. Cllr Steve Williams compared Cllr Foulkes to an incompetent surgeon who needed to be removed before he does any more harm. Cllr Adam Sykes’ speech was interrupted by the Mayor, keen that he used the word alleged in respect of things alleged in the AKA report.

Cllr Foulkes said he was not in it to seek personal gain but wanted to point out what had been done. He apologised again to Martin Morton and anybody who had suffered a detriment in the past. He said they had got it “horribly wrong on Fairer Charging” and got heckled by someone from the public gallery shouting “he hasn’t got his job back”.

The Mayor gave a stern warning to the public gallery and said it was the last warning that if there was any further disruption she would order it cleared.

Cllr Foulkes referred to an unspecified “disgraceful blog” and said he was sorry if sticking ruthlessly to Anna’s recommendations had been misinterpreted by Cllr Tom Harney as lack of involvement. He wanted to make it clear to people in the public gallery that he had apologised and pointed out he had disbanded the Corporate Governance Committee and set up an Improvement Board. Cllr Foulkes said he tried to do things in an open and honest fashion, but that he couldn’t trust Cllr Green [Leader of the Tories] as far as he could throw him.

There were harsh words between the Mayor and Cllr Foulkes who finished by saying he was “not begging for my job”.

Cllr Green said he was not one for Standards Board complaints, but that Cllr Foulkes had called his trustworthiness into question. Cllr Foulkes was forced to apologise.

Cllr Stuart Kelly mentioned the senior officers who had been implicated had left under the cover of a compromise agreement, did this contain a gagging clause? He said “the cover up continues” and compared it to Watergate. He did acknowledge that Cllr Foulkes had “been badly advised” but that not to pay a price and resign diminished him.

Various other councillors spoke either for or against Cllr Foulkes’ removal as Leader. After all the speeches the meeting was adjourned. The Lib Dem motion of no confidence was combined with the Tory motion and went to the vote.

In favour to remove Cllr Foulkes were 36 councillors, against were 30, so he was removed as Leader of Wirral Council. After another adjournment there was a vote as to whether Cllr Phil Davies should be Leader. Thirty voted for and 36 voted against.

There was then a vote on Cllr Jeff Green as Leader, and he was elected Leader by 36 votes to 30. The Mayor asked Cllr Green to make an acceptance speech.

Cllr Green thanked Council for the confidence placed in him and that he wouldn’t name his Cabinet now. He hoped for an all party Cabinet and thought it was “genuinely important to find ways of working together”. He wanted the trust to be regained in Wirral Council and was going to defer Budget Cabinet from the 20th February to the 21st February. He would also send the Budget to the Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee to allow it to be scrutinised. Cllr Green wanted to accelerate the work of the Local Democracy Working Party.

He wanted a pause to reflect if the new management model for the Department of Adult Social Services was the best model. Cllr Green also wanted the Audit and Risk Management Committee to “be more activist”.

Cllr Green then answered a question from myself on the redacted parts of the AKA report. He said he wanted the maximum amount of information shown in public, but that he had to be responsible and speak to Bill Norman.

There were then a series of votes on the motions and the meeting finished soon after.

Click on link for full story:

White Houses Jack Lew Spins Truth in Defending Obamas Budget.