Thread by @mygibbo

I would like to correct some preconceptions.

Why have a number of councillors in Liverpool, myself included, decided to vote against the budget?

It is because we do not agree with the proposals included in it?

Was this a rush of blood to the head?

No, we have argued alternative proposals and had them rejected as 'not robust.'

We have scrutinised it in meetings including a long Finance and Mayoral Performance Joint Select Committee.

We disagree that cuts in social care, SEND transport should go through, oppose Green Bin charges in a climate emergency, want the non-council libraries' continued existence guaranteed, not subject to a bidding process.

There was little flexibility in the consultation process and the Cabinet proposals are essentially unchanged.

Personally, I raised the issue of reserves at the Joint Select.

Why have they risen £10 million? CIPFA and the commissioners advise that the reserves be high.

But that is a political decision.

Some of us believe the extra money delegated for reserves should have been used to protect services.

There is a lot of rhetoric about 'tough choices,' but tough for whom?

If these choices are tough on the people of Liverpool who need them, they are not choices we should make.

Who is to blame for all this?

Well, it is the Tories, propped up during Cameron's disastrous period in office by the Lib Dems, who forced through austerity, enriching the wealthy and impoverishing the poor.

The Tory government has torn £450 million out of this city.

That is why we are where we are.

But as socialists we should not pass on Tory cuts.

We should look for alternatives.

We can hardly say it would incur the wrath of the commissioners.

They are here and scandalously have had a 50% pay rise, backdated, with extra expenses on top.

Are we '80s militants?'

Well, the Poplar Council, the Clay Cross councillors and the Liverpool 47 put the interests of the population first, but this is not the 20s, 70s or 80s.

Every period has similarities to the past and differences.

We have tried to present alternatives but they have been rejected.

That leaves us with the options of either voting for a budget in which we don't believe or voting against.

We will vote against.

Hopefully, this will focus minds.

You can't vote year after year for cuts without demoralising the very people who are your electoral base.

There has to be a better way.

This is not about an 'illegal budget'; it is about designing a non-cuts alternative.

I am not satisfied that these efforts have been given due consideration.