Why I voted against the Brighton budget
So, the Brighton and Hove Council Budget has been passed, but people are still asking me the question: why didn’t you vote ‘for’ the budget with all of the other councillors in the chamber that evening? Why did you decide to vote against?
This blog is to explain my position. In short, I found our amended budget (by Labour and supported by the Tories), which included a Council Tax Freeze, unpalatable. I’ll clarify my thinking below.
First of all, I just want to say that I respect my colleagues, although I do not agree with their decision to vote ‘for’ the amended budget. I recognise that the other parties, who did not reveal their budget amendments until less than 48 hours before Budget Council, put us in an extremely difficult situation. This is despite us having spent almost three months in consultation with the city about our budget proposals.
I know from attending meetings in the run up to budget day that there were several distinct views in the Group on how to respond to the ‘Blue Labour’-Tory alliance’s voting through the tax freeze and all that means for more severe cuts to budgets next year. Some colleagues agreed with me and some did not. It is interesting that in the final days before the budget there must have been a shift among some colleagues in favour of supporting the budget should it be amended by the opposition on council tax as several colleagues had previously shared my position but I was the only councillor who ultimately voted against. I am told that the Unions attempted to put pressure on Labour but to no avail. But we knew that neither Labour nor the Tories would budge on their proposed Council Tax Freeze.
My view is that voting for the amended budget was incorrect, both strategically and in principle. For me it was down to a question of ethics, integrity, consistency of message and bringing our membership with us. In voting for the amended budget, I do not believe we managed to do any of these things – something that could be electorally damaging to us in the future.
Let’s put this into perspective. We led the way on refusing Pickles’ Council Tax bribe, which was a powerful thing to do, and thirty or so local authorities of all colours followed suit. Then, all but one (me) of the Green Councillors voted for the amended budget which included the Council Tax Freeze, so it looks as if ‘we’ capitulated to Tory thinking at the first hurdle. I decided to stand by my Green principles and keep my pledge to the members and the electorate, even if that meant I was the only one in the room to say ‘no’. Although my Green Group colleagues have equally sincere and different positions on this, as a politician, I believe it is important for me to keep faith with the voters: if I’ve told them that I’m against the Council Tax Freeze, then I feel that I have a duty to keep that promise and to vote accordingly.
Taking the membership with us is also crucial, and in my view, we failed in this regard too. I was the first Green to take a Tory seat in the city, and the first Green to take a seat in Hove, and so I know just how hard it is to get elected. And we don’t do it alone. We do it with the help of our members, who put in countless numbers of hours and tireless work to see us elected. As a grassroots, bottom-up Party, we are supposed to listen to our membership, and that is why we have two Green Group Moderators – party members who are there to amongst other things, ensure all members’ voices are heard. Both of these individuals had clearly set out their personal reasoning as to why we should vote against the amended budget. I felt, and rightly, that by listening to these two individuals I was listening to a view that was also held within our general membership. In my view, we ignore our members at our peril.
So, why am I, most of our members, the Green councillors and our Liaison Officers against the Tory bribe of a Council Tax Freeze? It is because of the knock-on effect that it will have for next year and future years, as we’ll have less income and our Council Tax base will be eroded.
I must make it clear that I am not advocating that the Green Party should stand down from administration; the issue is about being consistent with our policies and taking the membership with us. It is clear that we have not remained consistent with what we told members and constituents, and so people are right to be annoyed. The argument that the other parties could raise a vote of no confidence in our Leader is disingenuous. Under our constitution, which is the Strong Leader Model, a vote of no confidence holds absolutely no legal significance whatsoever. The only way in which the other parties could get rid of us as the administration would be for them to propose their own Leader and then to call another meeting to vote that person in, which would take three weeks. This is very unlikely to happen because it would mean that the Tories would have to be in a coalition with the Labour Party; that would be electorally disastrous for both of them, but especially for Labour as the Tories have more councillors. In the unlikely event that it did happen, I believe some Labour members would leave their Party and join the Greens within no time at all. However I accept there would be some significant communications challenges for the Party and the council Administration in the event of a no confidence vote whatever the legal processes and so this was a tough decision to call for everyone. I should also point out that a vote of no confidence could have been proposed at any time in the past or indeed in the future.
It is a challenging time for us to be in office, and we have had to work within the vicious constraints of central government, but the fact remains that we did not have to vote for a Tax Freeze – we chose to as part of the wider budget. Obviously others in the Green Group will disagree with me but I feel I have come to a considered position on this difficult matter.
So, where do we go from here?
Well, in my view, we cannot allow this to happen again. We must feed the dilemma outlined above into the local party constitutional review process; and we must have improved methods of engaging with the membership, especially when issues are this important and there are conflicting views within the group and the party.
Alex is Green Party councillor for the Goldsmid ward in Brighton. She is standing for the Green Party nomination for the South East Euro region.
Nothing green or environmentally friendly has been done for Brighton, in fact the opposite. They have just forced through their political agenda as quickly as possible before they are voted out. I am apolitical (so gar as party politics go anyway), but I do believe that local government should serve the consensus of their citizens, not their own ideology at the expense of their citizens. I am very environmentally aware (I voted green at the last elections, I am very concerned about the planet and live my life accordingly). Please read this re-blogged comment.
The greens shelved a park and ride which would have given the people of Brighton cleaner air and less traffic congestion. Instead they plan to build a traveller site that nobody wants (including the travellers, they prefer Stanmer park and Green park because they are free). So the green party are doing nothing green for the citizens of Brighton and Hove, in fact the opposite. Instead they just force through their deeply unpopular political agendas that have nothing to do with making the environment better for any of us. No doubt excruciating parking fees and rates from City Center NCP carparks mean that we are all paying extra for all this political dogma as well as suffering poor air quality and gridlock. A few weeds planted along Lewes Road central reservation does not make up for this. By the way, we moved out of our house in 5-ways because the greens forced an agenda to build a toxic waste processing plant right in the middle of the city at the apex of 3 school playgrounds. We did not want our child to go to school there.
Very interesting debate.
On one hand which way the Greens voted on the amended budget didn’t really make any difference as it was going to pass anyway.
However it doesn’t make sense to me that, given the council tax increase was one of the key issues for the Green’s budget, especially for the sake of minimising cuts in years to come, that they would vote for a budget that didn’t include this.
Personally I don’t care whether there are examples of minority administrations voting against their own budget even if it’s heavily amended, the question is what was right to do in this case.
Either they thought the budget was acceptable as amended or they didn’t. If they didn’t they had a choice whether to vote against or abstain. In fact they did neither and voted for it. How now are they going to be able to blame the Tories and Labour for the mess we’re in over the next few years when they supported the budget as amended by Labour / Tories?
As the Greens are in administration they are having to administer cuts. So I don’t accept the argument that it would be untenable for them to stay in administration if they voted against the budget – that’s politics! Making the best of a bad job.
what some dont apreciate is that the reason this has caught so much fire is that the green party is essentially split on whether to set legal budgets or to refuse to set them? gp conference rejected the position of refusing to set budgets by the narrowest of margins. the brighton councillors managed to redirect the debate around a rejection of the council tax freeze in order to reduce the sting of the cuts then they gave up. the council tax freeze was a national issue not a brighton one and thats why alex philips was right not to vote against any budget with it in.
Don’t talk hyperbolic nonsense Alex. They’ve done no such thing. Most of the left? All 300 of them who voted for TUSC?
So, when we refuse to pass the budget, and then get the other parties manufacturing a crisis, and they then elect a new leader and administration, who then cut even more services, get rid of all the things we’ve done and can continue to do, that’s all worth it? In order to achieve precisely what? Not one more job would be saved; quite the opposite.
The argument that the party should have nothing to do with any of this is a point of view, but which seems to ignore the fact that the last time it was tried, with a much kinder local government legal position, stronger organisation doing the resisting, stronger public support for the resistance and no narrative of austerity to make people think its necessary. All that was in place, and it counted for naff all.
I can appreciate that people would like the council group to start a fire and seek what sparks might catch elsewhere. My optimism for that fire catching is slim indeed, and my pessimism that the upshot would be that I’d live in a Tory city once again. Sod that, all the same.
It doesn’t matter that the ‘council tax freeze was the only amendment it suffered’ as this fundamentally changed the entire nature of the budget. While it really isn’t “remarkably like throwing your toys out of the pram at the first opportunity” it’s far more remarkably like refusing to do the opposite of what you were elected to do and keeping some legitimacy in the eyes of voters.
The Lib Dems and Labour are not, in my humble opinion, what I’d call a great example of how the GP should practice politics. Anyway the real issue is that the councilors and green party leadership should have been trying to form a national campaign of setting ‘needs budgets’ as this whole sorry episode was obviously gonna happen at some time without such a campaign.
Dave I’d rather not have anything to do with your translation of social change into political change when it involves sacking workers and cutting vital services. In fact you need to look at the bigger picture the B&H Green Party have made a great many people vastly disillusioned with the party and managed to alienate most of the left.
I was on Norwich City Council for two terms. There was first a LibDem minority administration, and then a Labour minority administration. Every single year there was a budget negotiation. Every single year the ruling Party had to make compromises. Every single year their budget was amended in Budget Council (or, on a couple of occasions, before it got to Council) by one or more other Parties.
Minority administrations simply do not get their budgets through unamended (unless the Parties not in the administration are politically clueless). The Green budget was amended vis a vis the Council Tax freeze – that was the only amendment it suffered.
This is normal, this is politics. You can’t vote against your own budget if you are a minority administration just because it gets amended. Or rather, you can: but it really is remarkably like throwing your toys out of the pram at the first opportunity.
p.s. I also think Lewis and Dave are basically right in their comments above, btw.
“Alex…is standing for the Green Party nomination for the South East Euro region.”
Like
@Beth – I think that’s a really unfair comment. The idea that because Alex did something ‘principled’ the remaining 22 councillors did something else so is actually quite offensive, and I’m disappointed in Alex’s narrative which seems to portray her as having some greater well of principled politics to draw on than her colleagues.
That’s not actually true, doesn’t reflect how the group actually arrived at its position and is deeply unfair to some people who spend an awful lot of time getting brickbats thrown at them by Labour, by Tories, by the local press, by some of our own members, all for having the courage to actually put themselves forward.
One might view the actions of the remainder of the group to be short sighted, or to be tactically naive, or strategically problematic, but to suggest that they were informed by less principle is just silly I think.
Alex – I’m acutely aware of how social change happens; its what has been going on for 30 years ere in Brighton. We’re now at the crossover stage where the social change which is underway is becoming political change.
The party has achieved a lot, but we’re utterly deluded if we think the votes we have been lent are because of a sea-change in values. It’s because people want something that works better than the crap they’ve been getting. It’s conditional, and can be undone.
Had we voted against the budget which we then would have implemented, I think we would have been hung out to dry. That’s what I mean by gesture politics. Our gesture – to be against cuts which we then administer – would have seemed tortuous, and we would have lost a public battle – such as it can be fought – in the local press and social media.
You talk a good theoretical game, but the upshot of us doing what you propose would have been purely symbolic, underscoring the notion that the Green party were not a party with whom one cain rely on to actually be good at running things. That reputation is one people have spent many years trying to build, and are doing it with green values and green ways of doing politics.
Ultimately, social change needs to become political change. Slavery was gotten rid of because enough people wanted it gotten rid of, but crucially, someone had to be elected, table a law and get it passed. It might be the final step, but without it, there is no actual fundamental change.
Sorry if that turns me into a running dog of revisionism. I just like changing laws, implementing regulations and so on; change starts in human hearts and minds, and ends in human institutions. Too much of the former changes badge all, to much of the latter become instrumental politics. We’re doing really well at balancing at the moment here in Brighton.
Rachel and Dave I’m interested by your view that symbolic acts are fairly meaningless “gesture politics” and that “We as Greens, have to decide whether we are a party that just goes on demos/protests or if we will try and work with the current system as best we can, to get our hands dirty and to do our best to change it”
I think you have a fairly naive understanding about how social change comes about. Change doesn’t happen through well meaning people being willing to get their ‘hands dirty’ by getting elected social changes happens because people force it from the bottom. If you think the way to effect change is getting elected why not just join the Labour Party? – They are much more well suited to your theory of change!
It is precisely because change comes form social movements forcing it that symbolic acts are so important as it is these which shatter the norm and provide hope there are alternatives, shows that all parties are not just the same and help forge the movement that we need. In short it is acts such as the which Alex took which make change possible.
I don’t have any faith left in party politics, but it’s really heart-warming to see an elected representative taking their responsibility to act democratically seriously. Shame the others didn’t, not a good omen for the Green party’s future actions as they grow if democracy is not being prioritized by all councillors at this level.
It must have been a ghastly time for all Brighton Green Councillors, and its not going to get any easier is it!
I do appreciate that Alex thinks she made a principled decision but I think shes wrong. It seems to me as well as Dave like “gesture politics” though I appreciate Alex did not mean it in this way and was clearly vey sincere in her beliefs.
We as Greens, have to decide whether we are a party that just goes on demos/protests or if we will try and work with the current system as best we can, to get our hands dirty and to do our best to change it.
If we dont want to do that, we might as well join the SWP. There are some good people in the SWP, but, personally think many of their views/tactics are scarily out of date.
Keeping your principles but not clinging to the past, is going to be continually difficult and mistakes and bad judgements will be made along the way, we are after all only human. Hope we will continue to support each other in doing this. Lots of best wishes to all Brighton Councillors for te work ahead.
Many thanks, Alex. Its a very complex situation with so many nuances of ifs and buts that its almost impossible to compute what might have happened if…
I certainly wouldn’t like to have been in the B and H Greens’ shoes in the lose-lose circs set up by LabConDem central government idiocy.
How can the Party as a whole now help B and H to formulate the challenge to central govt power, and lead those other councils which also want to do this?
As we’re about fairness, why dont we open a debate about how councils could promote a local economy and raise funds to keep crucial services going – e.g. some sort of local service bonds or lottery? Lets get out of thrall to central govt. by collaborating locally. The response might be surprising as there are plenty of people who do have money to spare for things they believe in. Any money raised locally would clearly not be going off to fund wars – people could rest assured that it would be used for vital services.
At the end of the day the budget would have had to have been passed. We may have been able publicise the shameful behaviour of Labour working with the Tories and I do agree we should have put up more of a fight but this would have only been temporary. Sad that overall then this issue of the council tax bribe and its rejection (that other councils have benefited from rejecting) ultimately has caused so much division. It is not a major part of the budget after all. ( Also a shame that the idea to reject the bribe was Brighton’s and yet they don’t get the benefit now). We need to move on. Brighton residents, I think, will be pleased that the Brighton Greens did not capitulate to Labour’s cunning plan and remain in office.
I respect Alex’s stance as thoughtful, considered and in line with her principles, but I don’t agree with it. It seems like gesture politics to me, based on an insider’s feel rather than a politician’s touch.
The real issue is not whether the Greens voted for or against; it’s semantics which is as meaningless to the average voter as Labour own shameful attempt to portray the tories voting for their amendment as meaning that they didn’t collude to vote with Tories. It’s nonsense, and people aren’t stupid enough to buy it.
If the greens would have voted against an amendment but stayed in administration, then we’d have looked very silly. We’d be trying to say that although we don’t agree with cuts, we’re going to administer them all the same.
But people know we’re against cuts, and they know the cause of cuts isn’t our own choosing but predominately forced on us by central government.
Ultimately, if we’re against cuts in any meaningful sense to vote against them, then we should resign and leave the implementation to those who created them. As a brighton resident, I’m very glad we didn’t leave the administration, because there’s all sorts of great things we’re doing which would be lost, and I really don’t want the Tories in charge of cutting services, thanks all the same.
Everyone not in the Green party I’ve spoken to agrees with the decision to stay in administration. They’d have crucified us as immature oppositionalists had we left, and if we were always going to stay in power, then we simply had to vote for the budget. To do otherwise would have left us very vulnerable.
For started, the opposing parties would have ridiculed us for being student union types, interested in semantics about motions, rather the ‘real world’; the local paper would have had a field day, talking of council chaos, with the administration voting against a budget which they will administer; votes of no-confidence would be tabled, and the legal position is of little relevance; the court of public opinion is more important in such times.
We’d have looked – to coin a phrase – in office but not in power, buffeted by events, not shaping them.
In other words, once we decided we’re were not going to leave the administration, then the die was cast. It’s worked too – the issue is a dead one – for now, and the Greens are in charge, and look to be so. The cuts will be horrible, but we knew that going in. Our job is to ensure that the cuts which were going to be legally have to be made were done as fairly and equitably; all Labour have done is ensure more of those cuts will need to be made than the Government were forcing us to make. But the issue is still one of degree, rather than principle.
The challenge is to ensure this isn;t a regular occurrence for the next 3 years. Changing the rules to force parties to submit amendments earlier is critical, as is making labour put their cards on the table publicly; force them to say what they want, and keep harrying them, so their position of opposition for its sake rebounds. Their voters are appalled by the actions of the councillors, and driving a wedge between the game playing of the elected members and the core values of their members and voters is a winning strategy, which will lose them activists and energy in the years ahead.
Alex, well done for standing up for what you beleive in. In a truly difficult time to stand alone like you have takes guts and I send you my warmest regards
Sarah
Interesting post, really appreciate you posting about this Alex as I’ve been following the discussions as best I can! The post raises a couple of questions for me…
How do you know the membership support your position Alex? What I saw from the tweets on #GPConf was that national party voted 2/3rds in favour of the Brighton position & that the local party had not had a vote on it. Is that not true – I know I shouldn’t rely on Twitter!!!
After following the GPconf debate I was sad enough to watch the webcast of the budget council meeting! At the end I heard you vote against two items on the agenda. When I looked it up online it seems like you voted against the amended general budget — which is clear as you explained that above — but, unless I misunderstood you voted against the capital budget which is was for things like building cycle lanes and new school places. Aren’t those things Greens in Brighton & Hove campaigned for too, so why did you vote against them?
I hope you can answer my questions!!!
Marianne x
Thank you for this excellent statement. I’m full of admiration for the stand you have taken on the Brighton & Hove budget, and for the clear way you have explained your position in this statement.
It’s very important, in my opinion, to understand how & why the shift of opinion within the Green Group happened in the days immediately before the final budget vote.
The more information and detail we have about those changes of view, without involving personality issues but sticking to the facts, and the debates that took place within the group, the better for the Green Party, and for developing and extending accountability in the future as the Green Party wins more council seats in other authoriites.
Yes, well done Alex
My fear now is that the anti-cuts movement which local Greens have been a part of will now have to resist the cuts the council is pushing through.
And with the one Party that said “cuts aren’t necessary” now saying “we have no alternative to making cuts”, it makes us even harder to convince the public that the cuts are NOT inevitable.
But of course regardless of what all the politicians say or do, those of us who work for the council will have to oppose every cut anyway, and we certainly will.
Well done Alex. I think you were quite right, both as a principled decision and tactically. Even so, it takes some guts to be in a minority of one.
This is a major tactical mistake by the other Green councillors which could well come back to bite them over the next couple of years.
Well done for keeping your promise to your voters. Just because this sort of integrity is rare in politics doesn’t make it foolish. In fact, ultimately, keeping your pledge makes you more trustworthy and more electable in the future.
The Green Party is supposed to be different, so we don’t need ‘examples in history’. This is a brave and honourable position. Thank you Alex.
Can anyone point me to an example in history of a minority administration voting against their own budget, the two opposing parties voting for the budget and the administration remaining in power? I know Brighton Greens have a proud history of setting precedents but this seems too far even for them. Constitutionally, as you point out, it might be possible. Logically and politically it is unimaginable.
I heard some really good stuff that Brighton Greens are able to do at conference, which we can be certain the opposition parties would not be doing. Why risk the progress and achievements that have been made for the sake of a change representing 1% of the overall budget?
Thanks for this. The implications of voting against the cuts have not been explained before. Jason Kitcat gave the impression that this would have been disastrous.
I hope that Green Party members in Brighton will continue to support the party on the Council, despite this.