Cabinet approves council budget

Mike Starke's comments are spot on in my view. In my dreams they could be put up outside county hall in neon lights - like the multiplex cinema has over the road. As a prompt for thought before cabinet meetings.

Found it:
http://www.iwight.com/council/committees/mod-council/23-2-11/Paper%20B.pdf

item 17

Continued:
(one report I saw on Council website calculated a saving in a full year of £1.6M by raising the threshold criteria). They went ahead with that and subsequently lost a judicial review over the case. Damage limitation saw the Council (ian anderson..?) claim only 38 people were affected by the ruling! 38 people do not amount to £1.6M budget spend in social care, I'm afraid.
Cutting £1.6M last year and *investing* £1.1M this year (£3.4M divided by 3) seems like a cut of £500,000 this year...minimum.
Have the Council put back the care they cut from people affected by the raising of the threshold criteria..? How did the Council come up with a budget saving figure of £1.6M in the first place when considering to change the criteria..? I mean, it comes from some knowledge they must have had..? Or was it a *stab in the dark*.. figure?
Somethings wrong here, there's some monkeying around with figures, I'll warrant.

limiting word count is VERY restrictive..

Official inflation is a tad over 5%.
The social care spend on all sectors is about £85M (about £50M for adult sevices).
Applying 5% to £85M gives about £4M a year inflation. One wonders..?
Does Mazillius understand himself or is he being disingenuous?
I'd say the overall lift of £7.5M for three years is below inflation rate to stand still - making for an actual cut in funding.
There are some 'fudging' here of figures that may, or may not be inflation adjusted....or worse, a mixture of the two!
Why not ask Mazillius directly (letter?) what figures are being used, where the inflation rate is being applied, to what figure is the inflation being applied - ie, to actual costs or to budget proposals - and what inflation rate has been used. I'd also ask if the cuts (or investments!) are being made equally across the social care spectrum or are weighted in favour of particular groups.
It seems to me they were talking about having to make cuts last year (one

Last night Cllr Mazillius stated re £7.5M "increase" that £4.1M was allowing for inflation and 3.4M was an "increase" in care budget over next 3 years. Anyone care to join me in disputing this?

Does not sound right to me with demographic pressures of increasing ageing population and contradictory to anecdotal evidence I have of people who have had their relatives care reduced or cut completely by a telephone re-assessment from an admin staff rather than a visit and proper assessment by a qualified care manager. Not to mention the problematic Personal Budgets!

This report cannot be right, can it?
£8M for broadband investment...? surely not. It was always going to be £3M.
......£3M too much!!!
Rubber stamped is the word alright. Democracy really doesn't work so well with this level of majority in one Political party and it is impossible to see how anything other than conservative schemes and dreams can get through the legal process. I'm disgusted at the level of cuts to social care - these total over £1.4M since April 2011 - at the same time as assertions that far from cuts being made, £7M is being invested EXTRA over three years..... It's not. Year one *extra* funding less inflation and the cuts will not bring the social care funding level up to where it was prior to last April ... smoke and mirrors.

JJ

Cllr Lumley may have a point; did County Hall scrutineers address these issues, for example?

1. Pay and conditions for lower paid council workers were unilaterally cut. With the precedent set, why did the council not apply the same cash-saving model to the highest paid in County Hall, who make up the £2.8m a year, 32-strong "corporate management board"?

2. There is also ample evidence external consultants cost Island taxpayers far more than could be negotiated in a more businesslike way, by councillors and officials with some experience of, well; business.

In one case, an estimate from County Hall ruled out a survey on the grounds it was said it would cost some £50,000.

An individual carried out the same exercise at his own expense - and in the public interest - for... £125.

Yes; by all means let's see some County Hall leaders challenge my assertions. I await their calls with eager anticipation.

... But I am not holding my breath, given the un

Increase the stress on families burying loved ones.... disgrace . As for Lumley - how about putting some alternative policies out there ?

Geoff Lumley is right to speak out about the Council's "scrutiny panels" and the nature of their ineffectiveness in holding this local authority to account. Perhaps at the next local council elections, people who can see that democracy is a sham on the IOW will boot some Tory members out of office,so that the principles of democracy can be revived on this Island that has been so badly served by a stifling Tory majority for to long now.....I would urge people to use their vote to force change and make our Council accountable to the true majority of people on the Island.

Any views or opinions presented in the comments above are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Isle of Wight County Press.