Letter: County Council Should Give Us Some Facts Before Council Tax Vote

Published on: 2 Feb, 2017
Updated on: 2 Feb, 2017

From Wayne Smith

The forced referendum for an elected mayor in Guildford reportedly cost £68,000, so I think we all know that a Surrey-wide referendum is more likely to cost nearer to £300,000 than £85,000 and the BBC report that it will cost another £630,000 to re-issue council tax bills in the event of a No vote. What a spectacular waste of our money.

Surrey County Council (SCC) have had to produce two budgets based on 4.99% and 15% Council tax increases, yet they can’t or won’t tell us what services will be cut so that we can all make a reasoned vote based on the facts. Instead, the council tries tugging at our heart strings by referring to cuts affecting the elderly and Alzheimers sufferers.

But what are the facts? How many elderly and Alzheimers sufferers in Surrey actually benefit from social care provision? What is the breakdown of the social care budget, so that we can see where it all goes and consider whether we think we’re getting value for our money?

I will vote No in the referendum and will consider very carefully before voting for a Conservative candidate in the local election (and I say that as a life long Conservative voter). A rout of the Conservatives in Surrey may just get the attention of Prime Minister May and even the attention of our Guildford MP Mrs Milton, who still hasn’t said anything on this subject ?

I maintain that funding for social care should not be dependent on post code or size of house. It should be financed by central government through income tax or National Insurance.