Things at Cornwall Council have not quietened down post the Budget decision last week. The Members room is an awkward place to be depending on which side of the fence you voted. Morale for the staff is low, with some still trying to comprehend what happened and many are thinking do they have a future at the authority. It is not good, and I doubt will improve anytime soon. The most searched keyword on council’s website is jobs.

A question that I have been asked by the public and staff is who voted which way on the Budget. So I have decided to publish the list (it was a recorded vote) and includes which party the Councillor represents.

For the Lib Dem Motion (0%)

Conservatives Councillors: Barlett, Biggs, Double, Eathorne-Gibbons, Ellis, Evans, Ferguson, Fitter, Harding, Hatton, Lambshead, Maddern, Mann, D Parsons, L Pascoe, Pearn, Penhaligon, Rushworth, Sheppard, Stewart, Stoneman, Tanner, Tucker, M Williams.

Lib Dem Councillors: G Brown, Glenton Brown, Bull, Dolphin, Duffin, Edwards, Folkes, Fonk, Gillard-Loft, Hannaford, Hobbs, Hughes, Kenny, Kerridge, Lewarne, Nolan, D, Parsons Paynter, Pearce, Polmounter, Powell, Preston, Rogerson, C Rowe, J Rowe, Schofield, Taylor, Watson

Against the Motion

Independent Councillors: Biscoe, Burden, Callan, Chappel, Coombe, Curnow, Dolley, Eva, German, Goninan, Greenslade, Haycock, Heywood, Kaczmarek, Keeling, Lugg, May, C Pascoe, Pass, Pollard, Saunby, Varney, Walker, Wallis, Wood

MK Councillors: Cole, Jenkin, Plummer

Labour Councillor: J Robinson

Conservative Councillors: Clark, Currie, Dyer, Eddowes, Gisbourne, Goodenough, Kennedy, T Martin, Mutton, Pugh, Ridgers, Robertson, Rule, Shakerely, Symons, Toms

Lib Dem Councillors: Austin, Donnithorne, Oxenham, Turner,

Abstentions: Harvey (Chairman), Sanger (Con), Riches (LD)

Not present for the vote*

Councillors: Bain, Brewer, Cullimore, Egerton, Eggleston, Flashman, George, Hicks, Holley, Long, M Martin, Nicholas, Teverson, T Williams, Willoughby, Wilkins

That’s it, feel free to share the list for all to see

*Not present for various reasons which could include being on other council business, illness, or some other excuse.

Tuesday’s Budget meeting was always going to be long and heated. As I have said previously, it was the battle of the 0% budgets and the Cabinet preferred option of the 1.97% increase, or to put it into monetary terms the increase to the Council Tax bill would be 42 pence per week on a Band D property, or 10p on a Band A.

Let’s be clear, no-one likes to raise Council Tax unnecessary. That is a fact. But for the last two years Cornish residents have had a 0% increase in the Cornwall Council part of the Council Tax bill. However, the £170 million and counting cuts to the grant settlements from Government can only be absorbed so far. In the end you run out of areas to streamline, or the favourite in local government circles, restructuring. That means Council Tax has to be raised if people want services to remain.

What actually happened shocked even me for the blatant disregard for setting a Budget that will protect deliverable services. Instead we got headline catching bullet points. That if you look behind them will result in service provision being reduced, and in some cased stopped. No spin, that’s the harsh reality. That is the bases of both amendments.

In a turn of events that no-one expected, least of all the Lib Dems, a great majority of the Conservatives instead of voting against the Lib Dem amendment, voted for it. This was carried and that made it the substantive motion. The Cons, then withdrew their amendment (after lunch officially). This left only one option on the table.

You cannot help but think the Lib Dems were out-manoeuvred by the Cons in the vote. Especially as the Con amendment had the unworkable tag from the S151 officer. So it had little if any chance of getting approved. And as it is so close to an election, the two big parties could not be seen to lose the advantage to each other. Furthermore, and confirmed by two of the four group leaders, there was common ground to support the 1.97% Budget but one group leader would not. Guess who? Yes, the Cons group leader.

Before the final vote on the substantive motion (the amendment, now formally adopted.) was taken, the interim CEO, Paul Masters also spelt out the impact on staffing levels and therefore service provision this substantive motion would have. This will be at least (I would say more) 135 jobs lost, which will be made up of full, part, agency and temporary staff. With no staff, there will be no service to provide. There is also the redundancy costs which unsurprisingly have not been factored in, and now will have to be found from somewhere. Yes, you’ve guessed it, more cuts.

The S151 Officer made it perfectly clear to all those present that a pro-rata cut would be applied to all Directorates if the amendment was carried. These details and impact was also read out before the vote, just to make sure everyone knew what they were about to vote on. You’ll be surprised how often people do not understand, or get confused on what they are voting for. You only got to watch the webcast to see. (Well you could have, but that will be gone under the cuts!).

These are:

As you can see, £0.8 million from Adult Social Care, £0.7 million for Children’s, £0.3 million from Shared Services which includes call centres and libraries and £0.4 million from Localism, Strategy and Communications. For the latter, this cut would completely stop certain functions.

The vote was finally taken and 52 Councillors voted for, with 49 against the substantive motion. There were also 3 abstentions. For the record, I voted against the substantive motion.

What the residents of Cornwall ended up with from the decision, is pretty looking headlines for the forthcoming elections. It looks very nice Lib Dem/Conservatives gave you a 0% increase, so vote for us. But get beyond the election, these very same people will be wondering how their pretty headlines will actually deliver services. The truth is they will not.

It is well recorded that I have never been a fan of the JV, but this budget has almost certainly killed off that process and if the reduced figures are actually true on the savings, including the ‘created’ jobs, these have now all but gone. So much so, the Cabinet meeting set for today, which included the final decision on the JV, and the issuing of the Invite to Tender has now been postponed until a later date.

For less than a price of a (weekly) chocolate bar, these services and functions could have been saved. But I guess having a good election leaflet is better than doing what’s right for Cornwall.

Staff who work so hard delivering services must feel so undervalued. I spoke to many staff who all wondered if they had a job after today’s vote. Some were in tears. Others just could not believe what had happened. It may have been forgotten by some Councillors, but staff are also residents, who can vote and their families vote will no doubt be very tempted to put an X in a different box in May. Especially after Tuesday and setting a Budget on political grounds, rather than what is good for Cornwall.

However, the most unsettling part of the day, was when Councillors were gleefully smiling that the motion they supported was carried. It was sickening to watch and I was ashamed to be in the council chamber with them.

Furthermore, and more bizarrely, the very same people who were saying we must protect the council tax payers, and without any irony, were proposing a £2.30 odd increase per week in council house rents. You really could not make it up

And later today, the Corporate Leadership Team will be having an emergency meeting to discuss the massive impacts this Budget will have on services. This is on top of an email sent this morning by Cllr Toms, the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care on the dire consequences that will have to be actioned with almost immediate effect just to balance the books.

I blogged about the battle of the 0% budgets and how the two largest political parties at Cornwall Council are trying to out do each other on producing the best headline grabbing Budget. Now the details have been released on both and reading them makes my blood boil. However, it is the chief financial officers professional view which has to be read.

The chief finance officer, is also known in local government circles as the S151 officer. They have given their professional view on the Tory (group – though I should say element of it) Budget amendment, which is different to the Tory-lead Cabinet Budget. The amendment proposals are by the former Cabinet Member for Finance, Fiona Ferguson and Scott Mann.

If this amendment is implemented by means of a majority vote the actual outcome will lead to job loses, but worse, the actual services the council provides will be reduced, or stopped completely. You cannot help but think (and I would agree) this amendment to the Budget is nothing more than electioneering of the worst kind. It seems they are more interested in having a good headline on an election leaflet, than actually looking after Cornwall and its people.

The details to the Tory amendment is HERE. However, it is the S151 response to the amendment that is so damaging. More so,  as the S151 position is politically restricted so the advice given would be neutral. I have worked with this officer at length and can say they put the council’s well-being  and services provided first.

This is the S151 response to the amendment. However, the most damaging blow to this amendment is the first sentence:

“this proposal does not satisfy for an essential amendment to the budget in that it fails to deliver a medium term sustainable budget strategy”

The rest of the S151 officers view is as follows:

Everyone wants low Council Tax bills and good services. And in an ideal world, the council should be able to set a 0% budget. But it is not an ideal world, the financial pressures are massive, which have been made worse by the very party in Government this amendment comes from. Even worse, MPs are putting pressure on people to have a 0% budget, so they and their party look good too. I say to them, concentrate on your own house, before you tell Cornwall Council what to do.

For me, I do not mind paying an extra £25 or so per year because services will be protected if an increase of 1.97% is implemented. We have had two-years of no increase. So it has not all been doom and gloom.

The very same party behind this amendment has made the poorest (with little sympathy) and most in need pay 25% or over £300 extra per year. But seem happy to push for a 0% increase even though it will make services worse.

Tomorrow, the details and views on the other 0% amendment. It is only slightly better than this Tory amendment.