Tory Candidate fiddling Council Tax figures

[g jones]

John Moss, a prospective candidate for the Tories has suggested with a large graphic headline that under Conservatives, residents in Hyndburn are £371 better off.

http://mossjohnblog.blogspot.com/201...bout-cuts.html

Mr Moss is clearly trying to mislead people by fiddling Council Tax figures.

The actual figures do not match Mr Moss's claims and contain several false statements and factual errors.

The 7 years prior (1997-2004) that Mr Moss relates to as 'being Labour run' were in fact 3 years Conservative. His figure of 6.95% attributable to Labour for those years is clearly false.

He has taken a 'whimsically magic' figure of 6.95% and multiplied it by 7 years and added it to Labour for 2004-2010 when Labour's figures are actually available as a matter of public record and way below Conservative increases (see table below).

My corrections are in red, Johns words in Black.
Will John Moss apologise for misleading the public? Will he explain how he arrived at this figures? Will he be putting this misleading information on his leaflets?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
"For the seven years since the Conservatives took control of Hyndburn Council, they have increased Council Tax, on average, by 3.68% each year, culminating this year in a freeze. True but the rate of inflation was half that figure.

In the seven years before the Conservatives took control, when Labour ran the Council (Labour had just one year in power 2002-2003, The Tories ran the Council for the 3 years before that, and then Labour the 3 before that), the average annual increase was 6.91%. (This is completely false information - 3 of those years were Tory, see table below). If Council Tax in Hyndburn continued to rise at that rate for the last seven years, residents in an "average" band "D" home, would have been £371 worse off. (Labour's budgets 2004-2010 are laid out as a matter of public record and average 2.9%, Conservative rises average 4.1% - see table below)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Seven years - All Conservative Council with Conservative rises, Labour amendments defeated.

2010 Con 0% Lab 1.5%
2009 Con 5.0% Lab 2.0%
2008 Con 5.0% Lab - no amendment (so assumed 5%)
2007 Con 4.8% Lab 3.0%
2006 Con 5.0% Lab 2.9%
2005 Con 5.0% Lab 3.0% IIRC
2004 Con 3.9% Lab 3.0% IIRC%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Seven Years - Listed are the Controlling Group and the Council Tax they passed

2003 Labour 3.9% (When De Loitte Touche and the Auditors said Labour inherited a Council that could not afford to pay the wages)
2002 Tory 2.8%
2001 Tory 7.9%
2000 Tory 0.0%
1999 Labour 6.9%
1998 Labour - do not have (end of ratecapping)
1997 Labour - do not have

[MargaretR]

Oh my - this election is getting interesting.
Let us know when the 'pistols at dawn' is due

[accyman]

fair do's the facts slagging labour off were wrong so labour have every right to correct them and i have no doubt if the other way around somone from teh conservitives would be on here pointing out the mistake

[MargaretR]

I agree with Mr Jones posting these facts.
I just find politics ironically amusing nowadays

[yerself]

I'm not having this. A politician wouldn't lie or distort the truth; would he?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by yerself

I'm not having this. A politician wouldn't lie or distort the truth; would he?

Yes she would ...

[Eric]

Facts and figures are all well and good; but a question that I think needs to be addressed is: Do people vote according to a reasoned assessment of the "facts", or, do they vote according to their emotions"? Do they vote with their heads or their hearts? In Canada ... excuse me for using a colonial example ... we have a minority government led by a cold, arrogant, control freak (and that is a generous assessment) who has prorogued parliament twice in one year stalling important legislation, has replaced the heads of government commisions with people who think his way, has alienated top military commanders at a time when Canadian troops are in harms way, has angered the Quebecois, has tarnished our world image by his lack of commitment to environmental issues etc. .... And still his popularity and that of his party has increased merely because of the success of Canadian athletes at the Van Olympics ... as if he scored the winning goal, eh.

So what chance do you think there is that folks over there will make up their minds on how to vote based on factual evidence that the "truth" is being distorted? Or have most already made up their "minds"?

[garinda]

I'll agree with one of his points, after living there for seventeen years.

Living in Tory controlled Wandsworth was fantastic.

Living in Tory controlled Hyndburn...not so great, when it comes to costs versus quality of services.

[Tealeaf]

It ain't that simple, Rindy...as well as value for money in terms of local council tax revenues, you have to look at value in terms of overall spending per head - the difference being the amount of central government funding. Here in Tower Hamlets - with a population about 2.5 X that of Hyndburn - local government expenditure is just about 1billion, as compared to Hyndburn's 15m or so (I don't have the exact figures).

Obviously, you have to factor in County expenditure - education, social services, police and the like - but the simple fact remains that an authority such as LBTH is spending per head of population a figure which is a multiple of that spent by HBC/LCC in Hyndburn. And the place is an absolute disaster - think yourself lucky in Hyndburn.

The argument for this state of affairs, of course, is that LBTH is the poorest local authoiry in the country, in terms of various deprivation indices; yet it also contains some of London's wealthiest areas - think of Wapping, Canary Wharf and Limehouse. The simple truth is that there is a relatively small difference in the median measures between HBC and THBC, but for overtly political reasons money is pumped into this Borough and just pi**ed away on every crackpot and corrupt scheme you can possibly imagine. This is the real scandal and whether you are Labour, Tory or whatever in Hyndburn, the one thing that local councillors there should be doing is kicking up a real stink about this sorry and indefencible mess.

[garinda]

I acknowledge what you're saying Tealeaf, and am well aware of the massive amounts of money that came fron the then Tory government, to their flagship council, that allowed Wandsworth to have the cheapest community/council tax in the country.

Money aside, it delevered first class services, and was well run, using both common sense and imagination.

In all the years I lived there I never had one complaint.

In contrast, since returning, I have made known one or two criticisms of H.B.C., and the people running it.

[g jones]

I have just had this response from John Moss.

The figures Mr Moss uses below are not HBC but HBC+LCC+Police+Fire (Full Council tax) - yet he attaches political control to just HBC and the Tories from 2004-2010.

Below Mr Moss says that LCC/HBC/Police/Fire were all Conservative controlled between 2004-2010 to arrive at his figures of 4.19% when in fact between 2004 and 2010 LCC was not Conservative Controlled but Labour controlled. Only HBC was Tory Controlled.

LCC makes up 72% of Council Tax. Police and Fire 13%. HBC 15%

Therefore it is impossible for Labour could have put it up £371 more because between 2004-2010 85% was set by Labour or a Labour controlled Police and Fire Authority.

Mr Moss clearly does not understand two tier local government which quite frankly presents a very poor understanding of politics. An honest mistake maybe and I just hope Mr Moss acknowledges and removes it from his blog.

I would also point to another inaccuracy.

No such thing as a NOC budget in 2000. In 2000 HBC may have been NOC but Adrian Shurmer was an Independent (who the Tories did not field a candidate against to win a 'Labour' seat) who voted for Peter Britcliffe as Tory Leader and he helped vote through a Tory budget.


John Moss said...
Year control Band D % increase
1993-1994 lab 635 -
1994-1995 lab 689 8.5
1995-1996 lab 700 1.6
1996-1997 lab 751 7.3
1997-1998 lab 817 8.8
1998-1999 lab 868 6.2
1999-2000 lab 940 8.3
2000-2001 noc 982 4.5
2001-2002 con 1,026 4.5
2002-2003 con 1,098 7.0
2003-2004 lab 1,200 9.3

2004-2005 con 1,259 4.9
2005-2006 con 1,300 3.3
2006-2007 con 1,364 4.9
2007-2008 con 1,439 5.5
2008-2009 con 1,493 3.8
2009-2010 con 1,544 3.4
2010-2011 con 1,544 0.0

Average increase delivered by Labour 7.14%

Average increase delivered by Concervatives 4.17%

If increases had continued at Labour average, difference would actually have been just over £400 a year.

[garinda]

Was the reply like that, in the third person?

How grand.

I wonder who's his mouthpiece, and who's working the strings?

[accyman]

cant mr moss respond himself seen as its been dragged out on here, i would expect somone to post there response themselves rather than rely on the opposition to post it for them ?

[g jones]

I do not know why Mr Moss did not reply. Perhaps he realised his error and did not wish to compound it.

However I think it is important that any literature that goes out is as accurate as possible and flagging up what maybe a honest mistake (in not understanding the difference between LCC and HBC), even if the figures are fiddled (in terms of blaming Labour), is better now than later.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by g jones

I do not know why Mr Moss did not reply. Perhaps he realised his error and did not wish to compound it.

If he did not post on here Graham, how did he respond to you?