Derby campaign to win 'Fair Deal' loses Tory support
THE Tory opposition at Derby City Council has ditched its support for a cross-party campaign calling for a better funding deal for the authority.
Conservative councillors said they originally backed the Fair Deal for Derby Campaign in the belief it would try and address "historical difficulties in Derby's grant settlement".
The Tory group leader, Councillor Philip Hickson, claimed Labour had instead used it as a "party political vehicle" to attack the Coalition Government.
Statistics show that cuts made to Derby's grant total £75 per head of population since 2010 – compared to a national average of £62 per head for similar-sized councils.
visit us at www.meetthelenders.co.uk/blogs to Save 30% off your loan fees with Quick Quid, Read our article for instructions
Contact: 0115 8962299
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
And the council says it must save £62 million over the next three years in the face of financial pressures from cuts to funds from Government, inflation, and Derby's growing population.
Mr Hickson said neither the Labour group nor council officers had made a serious attempt to approach Government ministers to discuss the grant settlement and added that his party were upset at Labour plans to spend "thousands of pounds of public money" on advertising for the campaign.
Mr Hickson has now written to Paul Bayliss, leader of the city's Labour group, terminating the Tories' involvement in the campaign.
The letter said: "It has become increasingly clear that the Fair Deal campaign is being used by Labour as a party political vehicle both to attack the Coalition government and to disguise your clear inability to get to grips with the serious budgetary position which faces Derby at this time of fiscal realignment.
"Despite agreeing to support an approach to Government to enter into meaningful discussions about our financial settlement it remains a grave concern to me that no serious attempt has been made by you or officers of the council to arrange a meeting with ministers or civil servants; all that has happened is an increasing display of political grandstanding, some of which has been at taxpayers' expense.
"This is totally unacceptable and demonstrates, I believe, that there is no serious intent on either your own or your group's part to try and make responsible and meaningful representations to Government on behalf of the city."
Mr Hickson said he was aware the city council had made planning applications to put up "banners" on lampposts across the city, advertising the campaign, paid for with city funds.
He said that items in the 2013/14 budget such as grassing over flower beds and cutting funding for environmental group Wild Derby were "vindictive".
The letter says: "You will damage a hard-won reputation for financial competence that Derby has long held.
"This could have been mitigated if the council had effectively lobbied Government to address some of the issues in our grant settlement in the run-up to and before it was announced."
Last week, David Cameron visited Derby and said he did not believe cuts to the city council's grant were unfair compared to other authorities. Mr Hickson said this had nothing to do with his party's change of mind.
Councillor Ranjit Banwait, Labour's deputy leader, said he did not believe this and claimed the Conservative group's heart had never been in the campaign.
He said: "It goes back to when it was first discussed when they supported the campaign but also made grand speeches defending the Government. I'm sure this is all to do with the Prime Minister's visit. They are effectively agreeing with him that Derby is getting a fair deal."
He said accusations that his party was not engaging with ministers were "completely ridiculous".
Mr Banwait said: "Chris Williamson [Labour's Derby North MP] handed the 12,000-name petition into the House of Commons at the end of November and we've heard nothing back. The whole idea of the campaign is to bring the problem to the Government's attention and we've heard nothing."
On the advertising, Mr Banwait said "everything has been done properly".
He said: "The posters are part of a wider campaign. We are trying to prompt the public to get involved, join the campaign for a fair deal and have their say."
Comments
by smokey
Saturday, January 12 2013, 11:08AM
“Put aside for one minute the politics.
Derby is a major manufacturing city in the UK. A reduction in the grant settlement penalises projects to attract more business to the city.
The GS reductions have been predominantly north of Watford based. What message is this sending to the people?
You don't matter? You have to bear the largest proportion of the burden? The south east is more important than you?
Back to the politics............
Whatever the message, just remember this Prime Minister visited Derby and pledged support for Bombardier prior to awarding a major contract to a German company.
Can you trust anything this government says? Can you trust local politicians who bend to the whip wielded by their masters in London?
It's only 3 days ago a gov't minister said local politicians are 'well meaning volunteers' (ie; amateurs) but in the localism bill ordered them to administer £millions of cuts to services and benefits.
Cuts are a pseudonym for sackings.”
by Derby_born
Thursday, January 10 2013, 5:21PM
“Firstly, I agree with what mark_sinfin says the council has gone about this in the wrong way. This has obviously become a political campaign, but is it being funded by the City Council which is apparently having to make cuts due to a shortage of Government Funding?
How much do these banners cost? More than 250 of them are being used according to another article on this website: http://tinyurl.com/bhbs6gq "Putting up anti-cuts banners will cost the city dear".
Here is an article from 2011 which showed that a single large banner at Chapel Street Car Park cost £9,000, which gives an indication of the cost of a smaller banner of the type being used in this campaign:
"DERBY City Council has spent £9,000 replacing an old advertising banner on a city centre car park." http://tinyurl.com/agnadjo
But at least that banner was intended to promote part of Derby, not attack the government of the time.
If it transpires that the cost of buying and erecting these electioneering banners is to be covered by the Council Tax Payer, surely this could be challenged in a court of law as this would be misappropriation of public funds.
Finally, just think what the Council could do with around £250,000 they will probably be spending on these Labour Party electioneering banners, (given their size, they could cost upwards of £1,00 each) at least one project would be able to keep its funding! It is no wonder hat the Conservatives have refused to support the campaign now that it has become a Labour Party election campaign!”
by dianae
Thursday, January 10 2013, 4:37PM
“sorry last comment was to stargazerhill
f Cameron thought it would get him 1 or 2 parliamentary seats next time tound, he might well find some data that would allow him to adjust the Derby finances”
by dianae
Thursday, January 10 2013, 4:36PM
“Anony-Mouse - if Cameron thought it would get him 1 or 2 parliamentary seats next time tound, he might well find some data that would allow him to adjust the Derby finances”
by dianae
Thursday, January 10 2013, 4:34PM
“If the Conservative councillors beileve that there are historical unfairnesses in the budget (ie under previous govts) then they should lobby the present Govt to put historical inaccuracies right.
they don't need Labour to hold their hand to do this or to assocaite themselves with any posters”
by Anony_Mouse
Thursday, January 10 2013, 1:54PM
“Andrew_Ilson comment clearly demonstrates the deluded conspiracy theories so often propogated by desparate labour supporters frantically trying to defend the indefensible labour incompetence and political posturing.”
by stargazerhill
Thursday, January 10 2013, 1:23PM
“If the prime Minister says Derby is getting a fair deal i can't see approaching anyone in government is going to make any difference.
Apparently his own constituancy of the rich and no council housed Oxford is given less benefits so he would like to see benefits shared more. So i take that as giving benefits from those who need them to those who don't in Oxford.
And the council are wasting money advertising, we elect them to speak on our behalf, if they need us to lobby the government then why do we even have them in the first place.
Won't be long before they push people enough that we end up voting in more extream parties who promise us better.”
by DCFCOAP
Thursday, January 10 2013, 11:18AM
“Was this Tory "U-Turn" ever in question?
The only reason they joined in was to get the people of Derby off thier backs.
Labour are bad, Tories are terrible and the Lib-Dems are just Tory want to be's.
Some of the UKIP policies are a bit worrying.
They're all about the same so get rid of the lot.”
by Andrew_Ilson
Thursday, January 10 2013, 10:56AM
“Nah nah nah. David paid a visit, told the Tory opposition to shut up (Malcolm Tucker style) attacking the government. So they have. The Tory councillors have put their political careers ahead of Derby's best interests.”
by Derbyirish
Thursday, January 10 2013, 9:52AM
“You can't get people out to vote so how some billboards around the city centre is going to energise the public into lobbying Government is beyond me- waste of time and money in a bid to score cheap political points.”