What is the Mayor doing for us?

[Penguin68]

Just received the Southwark Council tax bill - up by 5.9% overall, but Southwark's costs have apparently increased by 2% for Adult Social care (but see below)  and only 3% for the rest of their activity (an apparent net 2.78% increase) - what drives it, apparently, over the 5% is an 8.6% increase by the GLA - no doubt the Mayor's vanity projects such as ULEZ expansion. On the Roads and Transport thread there is a discussion about increases in Southwark's discretionary charges but we shouldn't let the Mayor escape our interest - and he doesn't seem to have to operate on the 5% cap imposed by Central Government on local authorities.

[However, if I work through the council's own figures as presented in my bill, the actual overall increase shown against each category - Social care, other Southwark and GLA - is only 4.31% - I could not see, on the figures presented, where the 5.9% came from  - although my bill for next year is indeed 5.9% greater than this year. In fact, going back to last year's bill - I have discovered that the Southwark figures as presented are a lie - the adult social care contribution in my Council tax has actually increased not by the declared 2% but actually by 23.9%. The actual net increase for Southwark - ON THEIR OWN FIGURES as presented in this and next year's council tax bill is 5% - hiked to 5.9% by the Mayor's greedy 8.6%. What I don't understand (but I suppose it may be an error and not an intentional lie) is why the adult social care increase should be understated by a factor of 10!. I do understand, and would indeed applaud, additional expenditure on Adult Social Care, I just don't agree that it should be hidden in the figures, and indeed a false %age increase declared].

Edited to add - I have based these percentages on the actual figures I had this March and last for my band of council tax. As I'm sure there are roundings I accept that the apportionment across each band - and %ages will have been rounded - won't be quite the 'overall' percentage quoted by the Council, but the disparity between a 2% increase and a 23.9% increase is not a rounding error. The absolute totals of my band's allocation - over 3 headings - do match the council figures. 

Edited March 7 by Penguin68

[Sydney Carton]

I'll tell you what he's done for me; he's forced me to take my much loved old car off the road. It's thirty two years old; I've had it for fifteen years and it's done about 1,000 miles a year. It passes emission tests without fail so by no stretch of the imagination could it be regarded as a polluter, certainly not in the league of some of the crappy vans that smoke past my house.

If I thought Ulez was forcing traffic off the road and making the air cleaner I'd be less upset but Lordship Lane is choking with fumes from dawn to dusk. Furthermore, if I were to pay the £12 to use my car, would it then make it a non polluter? Of course it wouldn't. It's a tax pure and simple.

I could hire zip cars but that does somewhat eliminate the spontaneity of a trip to the coast or a morning in Greenwich (have you tried to get to Greenwich from Dulwich on public transport?). Meanwhile Khan swans around London in a bulletproof Range Rover (with bodyguards) purportedly because of death threats.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Your story is demonstrating exactly what ULEZ was supposed to do: reduce or eliminate usage of older, dirtier cars in London. Well done on making the shift!

[malumbu]

Assuming that you live within the south and north circulars, it was Mayor Johnson's intention to extend the ULEZ to the A205 A406.  He said this when he announced his intention of introducing the ULEZ at a large Guildhall event in 2015, which I attended.  So any disgruntlement should also be applied to Johnson.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

35 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

what drives it, apparently, over the 5% is an 8.6% increase by the GLA - no doubt the Mayor's vanity projects such as ULEZ expansion.

Why imagine when you could just look up the facts? This was the first hit when I Googled "GLA 8.6%". Khan is spending it on the police, the fire brigade and TfL - the greedy bastard...

https://www.london.gov.uk/www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayors-press-release/Mayor_proposes_council_tax_increase_due_to_lack_of_Government_funding_for_the_police_fire_and_transport_services

[Rockets]

To be fair his TFL fare freeze (which is his, ahem, gift to Londoners ahead of the mayoral elections) is costing £123m which is probably a large chunk of the TFL element of the council tax rises.....

[Sydney Carton]

22 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Your story is demonstrating exactly what ULEZ was supposed to do: reduce or eliminate usage of older, dirtier cars in London. Well done on making the shift!

Did you actually read what I wrote? The mileage I was doing was comparatively nothing at all. Most cars do 15,000 or more a year. There is no discretion in the London ULEZ charging. In Paris their equivalent ULEZ exempts thirty year-old cars but in London it has to be forty for no particular reason. These old cars are modern classics and as a result will vanish from London. But of course the anti car squad want ALL cars off the streets. Well judging from the jams I see traffic levels have never been higher.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Sydney Carton said:

But of course the anti car squad want ALL cars off the streets. 

[Penguin68]

I started this thread because of the large %age increase asked by the Mayor - 8.9% against Southwark's 4.99% (giving a 5.9% total) - however I am also concerned that Southwark appears to be hiding its 23.9% increase on Adult Social Care Costs, reporting it as a very modest 2%. I absolutely recognise that more needs to be, and is being, spent on Adult Social care - but why the obfuscation (for those of you too sensitive to accept my initial description of 'lie'?).

[mrwb]

TFL and the councils are as cash strapped as everyone else is. That's the bottom line, not going to make any difference who is Mayor or who is running the council. Screwed regardless, you can't get blood out of a stone.

Things have remained pretty benign economically but like the 70s,80s,90s economic problems I doubt it will stay like that for too much longer.

[CPR Dave]

Everyone gets that they are terrible at budgeting.

The point the OP has repeatedly made is that they are even worse at being transparent. 

[malumbu]

Sydney, the ULEZ has been debated over many threads on this site, particularly since it was extended (but less so when it was just within the South and North Circulars suggesting that the inner boroughs are less bothered).  My point is that it was a Tory mayor who proposed this, not Labour (who implemented it) and Johnson, if he had continued to be Mayor would have done pretty similar in the first two schemes.  I'm a transport professional who was involved indirectly and saw Johnson speak several times.  As Mayor he came across as pro European, seeing Berlin and Paris as allies, and I expect not that pro intervention that affected car owners, but both were political opportunism and point scoring against his Eton Chum Cameron. 

The 40 year exemption for classic cars is an odd one, and goes back 30 odd years when it was 25 year old cars that were exempt from Excise Duty, which I understand was to placate a few crusty Tory Lords.  I'm really not sure why classic cars are exempt from anything.  If you are low mileage then it may have made sense to keep your older car and just pay.  ULEZ is about reducing mileage of older polluting cars, most owners will trade up for newer cleaner models, but for some it would make economic sense to keep the car and just use it when necessary.  There have been many discussions on this, with strong feeling from both sides.

 

 

Hope this context is helpful

[ianr]

13 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

In fact, going back to last year's bill - I have discovered that the Southwark figures as presented are a lie - the adult social care contribution in my Council tax has actually increased not by the declared 2% but actually by 23.9%. The actual net increase for Southwark - ON THEIR OWN FIGURES as presented in this and next year's council tax bill is 5% - hiked to 5.9% by the Mayor's greedy 8.6%.

In a Commons Library research briefing on what council funding jargon calls 'local referendums', Section 3.5 (Social care precept) has:

"Billing authorities must display the percentage increase in the adult social care precept to one decimal place.  They must display this increase in relation to the total rise in the social care authority's amount of council tax, not in relation to the previous year's social care precept.  Thus, if a social care precept was raised from, for instance, £60 to £75, the increase would be displayed as, for instance, 2% not 25%.  As the social care precept has existed for only a few years, it is normally small in cash terms."

I've not yet reconciled the figures or got my head round the intricacies of council funding, which I'll leave to you or anyone else minded to do so, but it seems so close to what you've described that I'll be surprised if it's not pertinent.

Funding for adult social care in England: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7903/

Council tax: local referendums: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05682/

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

That seems a very reasonable amd plausible explanation.

This thread is a great example of #southwarkderangementsyndrome in action. Someone doesn't understand a number on a council document? Clearly it's a LIE and part of a terrible conspiracy (even though that person can't identify a reason why that would make sense).

[Alan Medic]

Make your vote Count

 

Edited March 8 by Alan Medic
Made a mess

[Jenijenjen]

Isn't this discussion more appropriate for The Lounge?

[Jules-and-Boo]

With the Mayoral election coming up, I've yet to see anything specific from Susan Hall - other than she will look for more money and make savings. Where do you think the money she has pledged for the £200m injection into the police will come from? thin air? removal of fares freeze? council tax increases?

While ULEZ is unpopular, the aim is to reduce air pollution and the current Mayor is making very good ground in getting London to be Carbon Neutral by 2030.

Do we really want a tory government AND a tory mayor? that's rhetorical. 

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Is ULEZ unpopular? Not what polls show. There is (as with LTNs) a vociferous minority who's apocalyptic rhetoric provides good copy for certain news outlets. Most Londoners get the need for measures that slightly reduce the almost total dominance of cars and seek to tackle air pollution

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/poll-more-londoners-support-ulez-expansion-than-oppose-it/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/07/13/latest-polling-shows-overwhelming-public-support-for-ltns/

Edited March 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

9 hours ago, ianr said:

"Billing authorities must display the percentage increase in the adult social care precept to one decimal place.  They must display this increase in relation to the total rise in the social care authority's amount of council tax, not in relation to the previous year's social care precept.  Thus, if a social care precept was raised from, for instance, £60 to £75, the increase would be displayed as, for instance, 2% not 25%.  As the social care precept has existed for only a few years, it is normally small in cash terms."

Thank you, ianr, for this clarification. I am amazed, personally, that councils are encouraged/ required to present confusing information (the other %age increases are of that category, year-on-year, and not as a % of the overall tax bill) - it is very poor policy, in my view, to present data which is confusing (derived differently) without a clear gloss and commentary. And, frankly, it is, again in my opinion, a good news story that more of our money is diverted to Adult Social Care, as a %age of previous spend, which has been derisory. 'We are planning to spend almost a quarter more next year than this on Adult Social Care' is a good news story, considering what else the council spends money on. And (just for the record) presenting statistical material intentionally in a confusing and inconsistent manner without further gloss is a lie, whoever (Council or Parliament) is the author of it. Perhaps a well-meaning lie, but a lie none-the-less. And it makes assumptions about the statistical abilities of rate payers to 'notice' something is odd (or rather, in the main not to notice) which is saddening.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

58 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

And (just for the record) presenting statistical material intentionally in a confusing and inconsistent manner without further gloss is a lie, whoever (Council or Parliament) is the author of it. Perhaps a well-meaning lie, but a lie none-the-less. 

It's weird and irrational to continue to insist that Southwark is lying even when it has been explained to you why the number is stated that way. You can't even identify a motive for why Southwark would want to lie. Why not just say you got the wrong end of the stick when you read the document? 

[spider69]

Just for interest sake. Do you work for on on behalf of Southwark Council PR Department?

[Penguin68]

Please do try reading what I've written before you leap into criticism - I acknowledged that it wasn't the Council that determined to use misleading statistics (by presenting a column of figures which was entitled 'Percentage Change' - two of which were year-on-year figures and one of which was as a percentage of the total bill) - without in any way explaining that these apparently comparable figures  were reached differently, but Parliament.

It doesn't stop those figures being misleading.

I then went on to point out, that in my view is was a good thing to increase expenditure significantly on Adult Social Care and to hide this was a mistake, forced on the Council by Parliament.

I didn't attribute any 'motive' because the cause of the Council's actions was made entirely clear by ianr in the extracts he quoted, for which, again, I am grateful.

Clearly you do not understand that to say 'Percentage change' implying (and the figures support this) year-on-year within that category  for two-thirds of the categories listed - when, in one case, it's not that but Percentage of the whole bill is misleading.

The figures are not derived in the same way. For taxes raised by the London Borough of Southwark as a whole, and the taxes raised by the GLA you find the percentage increase by dividing the difference between last year's and this year's precept into the last year's figure, and multiplying by 100. Doing that reaches the same figures as shown on the bill.  If you do that for the third figure you get not the 2% shown on the bill, but 23.9%.

If you do not understand why that is 'wrong' then perhaps you might want to brush up on how to present figures properly. [NB a footnote to confirm the figures were derived differently would have been acceptable] 

Edited March 8 by Penguin68
Typo

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, spider69 said:

Just for interest sake. Do you work for on on behalf of Southwark Council PR Department?

Ha ha....proper analysis, and scratching beneath the surface is something the council and their fan-boys absolutely hate, so many are happy to slurp on the council Kool-Aid and take everything presented at face value! 😉

[Spartacus]

This thread sounds like a song by Edwin Starr 

The Mayor, huh, yeah
What is he good for?
Absolutely nothing, uhh
The Mayor, huh, yeah
What is he good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
The Mayor, huh (good God)
What is he good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me, oh

🤣

[jazzer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2yHDQtKGjQ

Try this.............................................................................