Emergency? What Emergency?

It is clear our civilisation is screwed.

By 'our civilisation', I mean the global socio-economic empire that has developed over the past 70 years, and on which the vast majority of the world's processes turn. It is unsustainable. It cannot, and will not, last against the heating up and transformation of the world into a different sort of place, at a rate that nature simply cannot keep up with. It has already started - and I cannot see how it will be stopped given current politics.

Predicting the future is always difficult, and I'm just a guy with a keyboard, but you can get a shape of what is to come by extrapolating from what is happening already. At least, what will happen in the UK. If you think I'm wrong, please, please, tell me where my error is.

Firstly, it is clear that we will not limit warming to 2°C. The problem is too big, the political will is not there, and it requires sacrifices that democratically elected politicians cannot stomach and autocrats can too easily ignore. Changes that should have been happening two years ago have not started, and there is no movement to fix the problem, regardless of how many governments and councils declare a 'Climate Emergency' (and then approve the expansion of their local airport).

This means that we're heading for at least 4°C of warming, or even more if methane in the permafrost is released. So what could happen?

The new normal

Firstly, life will continue on pretty much as it is, for maybe 10 years or so. You can see it already - ice is melting, heatwaves are getting worse, storms are getting bigger, but people are largely just carrying on. The system is pretty resiliant, and people will wish for things to carry on as they are - so, to a point, they will. The prices of some things will go up, maybe double in price, maybe bananas and coffee will disappear, but alternatives will be found, because people will be willing to pay for it. In the EU and UK people will adapt to the increasing heatwaves, and carry on with their lives as best they can. The increasing deathrate will be dealt with just like the annual toll from car crashes - ignored, if possible. The poor will suffer, and the well off will cope by throwing money at the problem.

As time wears on, a few areas may become abandoned - it's simply not worth rebuilding an area before the next disaster hits, so people will move elsewhere, leaving areas to be taken over by wildlife. Areas of the equator will simply become too hot to live in. This will be noted, along with the stream of species extinctions and increasing size of refugee camps, but will quickly become normal. Maybe in the UK people will start to grow their own crops, as supplies of some things slowly dry up. Again, the new normal.

The system breaks

But then A Thing will happen, or several Things in close succession. It's very hard to see what the  Things will be, but some possibilities are:

• Mass migration causes countries to block their borders to everyone, but there will be too many people to stop
• Antibiotic-resistant disease outbreak that the WHO don't have the resources to control
• Bangladesh is flooded, leading to millions of deaths and a mass exodus that progresses outwards as people try and find somewhere to live
• A confrontation between countries in the Middle East, or in Asia, that quickly escalates to nuclear bombs

The death toll will be in the millions, and it's effects will be immediate. It may not be directly climate related; maybe the increased stresses on people and countries trying to stay alive will reach a limit, and violence will erupt. It's very hard to predict what will happen then, but it will be incredibly disruptive to the global supply network. Already strained political and economic structures will simply collapse. Over the course of weeks, or maybe a few months, countries will start to collapse into civil disorder, due to lack of supplies of food and drinkable water. Many more people will die. Millions, maybe billions, as chaos and violence spreads.

After the end

But what happens then? People will still be alive, life of some sort will continue (life has survived 5 extinction-level events so far, it will survive a 6th in some form). After the riots, life will continue for some, and some will find a way to survive. My vague guess is that, as global systems break down, people will start to reorganise themselves more locally again - back to a much more localised way of life, living in the ruins of the old world, and staying away from areas too contaminated or too choked with rubbish to sustain life. Some of the existing political or economic structures may continue - but they simply won't have the power to do anything. They just...won't matter any more.

However, one thing I can't predict is what effect technology will have - the increased use of surveillance systems, and the increased control a tiny minority will have on the majority. Combined with the rising authoritarianism over the past few years, and we may be in a very bad place indeed. Will we be left with a dystopia - a mix of V for Vendetta, 1984, Elysium, bits of Black Mirror, or the Hunger Games? Or maybe we will be able to fix things; after all, technological progress makes huge advances in a crisis. Your guess is as good as mine.

Either way, it won't be the same civilisation anymore. Either it will turn into something else, or be replaced entirely - as some people will survive, and they will find some way to organise themselves, or be organised.

Really?

I know as much about what's going to happen as you do. But I think this is the shape of things to come. However, what is clear is that if we want to avert catastrophe, we are not doing enough. How do I know that? Because my life has not been disrupted yet.

I know we have disaster coming, but I still drive my petrol-powered car to the shops, to buy food transported here on bunker fuel-powered container ships, wrapped in plastic that is ending up in landfill, cooked on a gas-fuelled hob, in my gas-fuelled central heated house. Sure, I'm not taking flights this year (apart from a grudging 2 flights to visit family), I cycle to work, and I'm trying to cut down the meat I eat, but that's not nearly enough. Like anyone else, I'm too used to what I do. It's just too easy to ignore. I, and everyone else, need to be forced to make drastic changes to my life to have even a slim hope of stopping this. This can only be done at a national and international level.

Off the top of my head, some things which would help:

• Immediately limiting flights per year per person, resulting in an immediate halving of flights, and reducing down to zero over the next 5 years. Yes, airports will close. Businesses will be disrupted. So?
• Limiting the distance container ships can travel to 1000 miles
• Requiring licenses for shops and restaurants to sell non-vegetarian food, with limited licenses, just like alcohol licenses. In restaurants, the vegetarian menu is the default, you have to ask for the meat menu, and pay a high supplement.
• Banning all diesel-powered cars from the road now and banning sales of non-electric cars. What, you mean there isn't the capacity to build enough replacement electric cars, not enough charging points, and not enough cobalt being mined for the batteries? Your point is?

These things are incredibly disruptive. Thousands will lose their jobs. But climate change will be worse.

However, these things will not happen. For one thing, they require international effort - what's the point of limiting flights in the UK when people can just get a train over to Paris and fly from there? And the political will is simply not there - as we saw from the fuel riots in France, even the smallest change causes outrage. These changes will cause your business to go bust? If we don't do this, and more, then your livelihood will cease to exist and your town will disappear under the waves. China and the USA won't make changes until it's far too late, and the EU takes several years for legislation to go through. We don't have that long.

We are not going to limit temperature rises to 2°C. We are going to hit 4°C at least. Our civilisation is screwed.

The Rise of the Brexit Party

So, Theresa May is quitting, and still the Brexit monster lumbers on, devouring all in its path. But, as has been pointed out elsewhere, changing the PM doesn't change the fundamental problem - Brexit is impossible to deliver as promised.

Reconciling the Irreconcilable

For the past 3 years, Parliament has been been trying, and failing, to reconcile two irreconcilable things following on from the Brexit referendum:

1. The UK is a democracy, and so if the population vote for something to happen, it should happen.
2. Parliament and the Government should guarantee the future prosperity of the country.

The fundamental problem, among others, is that the population voted for something that is highly likely to damage the future prosperity of the country. It is like the country voting for something that, it turns out, would fire 25% of the population. Politicians generally have had 3 responses to this:

1. Find a way to work round the consequences of the vote to reduce or eliminate the potential for damage
2. Follow the requirements of the vote, even if it causes significant damage to the country and to people's lives
3. Ignore the problem, and continue to insist it is possible to leave the EU without economic damage

However, no one is really addressing the solutions to resolve the problem, and no one is saying what needs to be said - there is no good way out of this situation. There are several ways to resolve the current situation, now that TM's deal is dead (note I'm ignoring other possibilities like a General Election; that still doesn't resolve the core problem):

1. Revoke Article 50 outright
2. Have a referendum on the terms of leaving the EU
3. Leave with no agreed deal

All of these are bad outcomes. The first and second are going against the Brexit result, either implicitly or explicitly, and so breaking people's trust in the current political system. The third will set back the country's economic development by decades, will cause thousands to lose their jobs, and will likely cause deaths due to lack of medicines and chaos at the border in getting critical materials into the country.

I, personally, think the way out is a referendum on terms of leaving the EU, hopefully resulting in revocation. But it still is a bad outcome, and will have very serious consequences for the political system for many years to come. I just wish politicians advocating for a referendum acknowledge the problems that will be caused.

Perhaps an analogy is in order. We have been coaxed into a prison, and the only way out is a very small hole. It is possible for us to fit through the hole and escape, but only by removing an arm (work with me here). There are some that are advocating keeping the left arm (following the referendum result), and some that we keep the right arm (not screwing over the economy). Either side is, rightfully, horrified - think of all the things we do with that arm! You're advocating we chop off one of our arms? Are you mad? We need that arm!

However, the reality of the situation is that, regardless of our choice, we are going to lose one of our arms. That will have serious consequences that we will have to deal with. The only thing to decide is which is more important? Which consequence is less bad - setting the economy of the country back 30 years, or fatally damaging people's trust in the current political system?

The rise of No Deal and the Brexit Party

Part of the problem is the polarisation between the different options in the past few months. Before the referendum, hardly anyone was saying that leaving without a deal was even a possibility, but that has now gone completely the other way. Now, any deal that concedes anything to the EU is seen as 'not a proper Brexit', and not following the referendum result.

The reasons for this can be traced all the way back to before the referendum - leaving the EU, and negotiating a deal, was portrayed as easy ('the easiest trade deal in history' anyone?). Furthermore, thanks to 40 years of anti-EU media propaganda, the referendum was subject to a strong protest vote that resulted in people pinning their wishes for the future on the UK leaving the EU. It was possible, it will be easy, it will solve all our problems. Whether the politicians peddling these lies actually believed themselves is another matter, but a lot of people, through no fault of their own, believed them.

But, as the sheer scale of the work required to leave the EU without damaging the economy became clearer, instead of admitting their mistake and reevaluating the situation, the Brexiteer politicians doubled down - the delays were due to Remainers trying to sabotage the negotiations, it was all due to EU intransigence, etc. The result of this was to close down the option of leaving with the 'easy deal' that they promised, as it was clearly 'sabotaged'. The only place to go then, was to leave the EU with no deal.

Throughout this process, people continued to pin their hopes for an improvement in their situation on leaving the EU, to such an extent that it became part of their identity, part of who they are ('We need to leave the EU'). At that stage, it becomes very difficult to change people's minds, as to consider not leaving the EU is to challenge one of the fundamental baseis of their self-identity. It challenges who they are as a person.

The rise of the Brexit Party follows on from this. It has no policies, no ideas, no plans, other than 'WE MUST LEAVE THE EU'. This connects with people at a deep emotional level, as it provides an outlet for their self-identity. It then becomes very difficult to move away from that.

So what now?

The consequence of this is that, whether we leave the EU or not, the Brexit Party will continue to be the party of choice for those with 'leaving the EU' as a core part of their identity. Because what they want is fundamentally not possible, because politicians they trusted refused to tell them, any future course of action will lead to anger from those who follow the Brexit Party as it will be a 'betrayal of Brexit' or 'not a true Brexit'. The party is already worryingly right-wing, and I fear this will only get worse as reality fails to bow to their will.

However, there are causes for optimism - the country is turning against Brexit, and pro-Remain parties are in the ascendancy. The middle ground of compromise has, unfortunately, been squeezed out. The only question is will the Remain parties be enough to counteract the rising tide of fascism before Brexit runs its course, or will the country slide further into oblivion?

The Equality of the Count

The Count for the local elections this year was the second one I've been to, and it's been a really odd experience both times. It's often the only time you meet and talk to your political opponents (apart from hustings), and you're all in the same boat - you just have to stand there and watch all the votes being processed. There's nothing you can do to change the result, you just need to stand there next to an opposition member and watch.

If you stand or are heavily involved in an election, the relationship with your political opponents is a strange one, and it's taken me a while to get used to it. Often the only communication you have is through leaflets and twitter, and it's really easy to think of them as 'the other' whom you have to beat - it's a trap I've fallen into several times before. This is exacerbated if there's attacks on you or your party in the opposition literature, or if there's members of the opposition team who, because you're with a certain party, attack you simply for getting in their way.

However, the truth is that most of the people working in the opposition party are doing it for exactly the same reason as you - because they want to make their area and city better, they want to help people. Sure, they may disagree with you about what that means or what the priorities are, and may make some decisions that you think are bad, but their intentions are (generally) good.

But it's difficult when there's attacks in the literature and online. The campaign in Romsey was quite positive on all sides (and my thanks to Noel for that), but there have been some shocking attacks and leaflets elsewhere in the city. Local politics in Cambridge has a tendency to be rather adversarial, and there are many people - some from historical experience - who interpret all opposition work as bad or wrong, just because it's the opposition. And that results in a negative atmosphere all round, to the detriment of all.

But they're the opposition, and democracy forces us to compete. I want to make a difference to my local community, I want to help make people's lives better. But, often, the only people who actually have the power to fix things and to set overall priority are the councillors. Of course, I email the council, or the officers. Maybe a junction needs to be redesigned, or some trees need pruning or moving. Often there's no reply from the council, or there's no money, or it's not a priority. After all, I'm just a local busybody sticking his nose in.

So to really make a difference, to improve people's day-to-day lives, I need to be elected, because councillors have that power. Unfortunately, there are other people who want it as well, and there's only one seat in the council chamber.

So you campaign - putting out your different opinions about what should happen, what needs to change, what you have done and what you will do, so the electorate can choose. There may be policies or decisions taken by the opposition that you feel are wrong or detrimental to the area, or there may be an issue they've ignored - and so that's one of your campaign points. But sometimes those campaigns can degenerate from positive campaigns about you and what you've managed to get fixed, and turn into negative attacks on the opposition, or even personal attacks on the candidate directly, and local democracy quickly turns poisonous.

It's a really tricky balance, and it's so easy to turn negative. But, ultimately, you all want the same thing, and you'll all end up at the count, watching those ballot papers move across the table, just waiting for the result.

What happens on Polling Day?

With less than a week to go to the local elections, the local parties are gearing up for their polling day operations. Not many people outside party activists are generally aware of the work that goes into polling day and the count itself, and it's an important part of how our local democracy works.

Polling Day

On polling day, each of the political parties in the area run a well-honed polling day operation to encourage people to go to their polling station to vote, and to vote for them. There are several different roles - tellers, doorknockers, and people helping with data entry.

Firstly, the doorknockers. Each party has got a team of people going round the area and knocking on people's doors encouraging them to go and vote. There's also normally a series of leaflets put through doors reminding people to go and vote. This is especially important for local elections, as the turnout is generally quite low.

Next, the tellers. These are the people sitting at the polling station, noting down who has gone to the polling station, usually by noting down the number on each poll card. This data is then passed onto the doorknockers, to remove that house from their list of doors to knock on.

The tellers aren't an official part of proceedings, and they can't go inside the polling station itself - you're not obliged to give them any information about who you are. However, letting them know you've voted will mean you don't get people knocking or leaflets through the door later in the day. All the registered political parties get the official record of who has voted afterwards, so it's information that the parties will get anyway.

Then there's all the people handling the large amount of data coming in - each party has several committee rooms set up across the city, normally at a friendly activist's house. This is where all the data is handled, lists of houses are generated, and a regular supply of tea, coffee, and various sugary snacks are kept for the doorknockers to replenish themselves.

This operation carries on all throughout the day - people get ticked off, and the remaining houses get further and further apart. Then, when the polls close at 10pm, we're off to the count.

The Count

This where all the hard work by canidates and activists over the last few months is decided. In Cambridge, the counting happens in the Guildhall, in the main hall. The number of people allowed at the count is quite strict - the candidates and a +1, the election agents, all the Council employees running the election, and the counters themselves - volunteers from across the city. A certain number of impartial observers are allowed as well. Press are normally cordoned off from the counting hall (in Cambridge, the Press are only allowed in the gallery).

The counters are all sat by long tables, and split into wards. Over the next hour or so after polls close, the ballot boxes arrive from across the city, are unsealed, and the contents are dumped on the tables in front of the counters for sorting. The only people who can touch the ballot papers are the counters themselves, the observers can't handle anything, or even touch the tables.

The count itself is split into two sections:

1. Verification
The first stage - the ballot papers are simply counted. If there's multiple elections in the same box, the papers are separated out, but there's no attempt to split by vote. This step is simply to verify that the number of ballot papers present at the Guildhall match the number of papers given out at each polling station, and check that none have gone missing. The ballot papers are then bundled into sets of 25 for the next stage.

2. Counting
Once all the papers are verified, and any missing ballots accounted for, then the actual counting can begin. The papers are then sorted by vote, and counted up. This stage normally begins around 2am in the morning. Any disputed or unclear ballots are set aside for determination by the counting officials. All the votes are then bundled into sets of 25 for final tallying for the result. If it's a multi-stage count, for example the PCC or mayoral votes, there may be multiple counting stages.

If something doesn't add up at some point, there'll be a recount of that ballot box or division, and if the overall result is close, a full recount may be called to confirm the result.

The observers are there to check that everything is done correctly, and to watch for any errors that are inadvertently made - everyone's really tired by this point, and it's easy to mis-count or skip papers. But the party observers also make notes of the proportions of votes for each candidate during the verification step, as the observers can see what's on each paper. This means the parties present at the vote normally have a pretty good idea of the result by the verification stage, if the vote isn't too close.


For the local elections, only the verification is done overnight - the actual count itself will happen on Friday morning, followed by the count for the mayoral election. But for general elections, the counting happens overnight. It's normally completed at around 5am, if there weren't too many recounts, and the winner is officially announced. Then everyone - counters included - head home for some well-earned sleep.

Romsey County Council elections

As you may be aware, I’ll be a candidate in the County Council elections in May for Romsey division. As your candidate, I think it’s important that voters have information on who’s on the ballot paper so that you can make an informed decision at the ballot box.

Who am I?

I live on Hobart Road (the Coleridge Road section). I grew up in Newcastle, and came to Cambridge as a student at Homerton College in 2004, studying Computer Science. After graduating in 2007, I got a job with a software company on the Business Park just south of Milton, and I now work as a senior software engineer for a software company based in West Cambridge, next to the Cavendish Lab. I lived in the city centre after graduating, and moved to Hobart Road in 2010.

I first joined the Liberal Democrats in 2013 - I was getting fed up with how little information there was about the local council and local councillors, and so decided to do something about it. I stood for election in the City Council elections of 2015 in my local ward, Coleridge. I got over 1000 votes and a swing of 12%, although unfortunately that wasn’t enough to win. I’m now standing in my local division for the County elections, Romsey (after the boundary changes this year).

My wife and I are active in the local community - we’re both regular members of St Martin’s Church on Suez Road, and my wife helps run Girlguiding for the south-east area of Cambridge, as well as running a Guide group of her own. I’ve been involved in local politics - knocking on people’s doors, speaking to residents, trying to fix problems, for over 3 years now. I’ve also played the cello in several local orchestras, and my folk band performs all around East Anglia.

Why vote on the 4th May?

Local elections usually get turnouts of around 30-40%, general elections around 60-70%. Local elections are generally seen as less important than national elections, but they actually play a really important part in the day-to-day running of the city and county. It is the City and County Councils that handle regular maintenance and management of the city, as well as being responsible for social care, schools, parks & open areas, bin collections, and many other things that you only really notice if they go wrong.

Whilst there are certain tasks that the councils must do, there’s a lot of scope for councillors to prioritise funding to certain schemes and not others, to change policy in certain areas, to enforce laws and bylaws to different extents, and so on. This means the political makeup of the councils can have a huge effect on provided services that people depend on, and can drastically change the ‘feel’ of the city, with significant decisions or policies having long-lasting positive or negative effects on the city and county as a whole.

One example is the current wrangling over the City Deal and how to deal with congestion in Cambridge, with the various political parties having very different views on what to do. The outcome of any decisions made will affect Cambridge for many decades to come, and it’s the local councillors making those decisions

Why vote for me?

As I’ve said, I’ve lived in the area for many years. I know what a unique place Romsey is - the cafes & shops, churches, pubs, the terraced streets, the parks - and I also know what problems it’s got - lots of pressure from commuter parking, too few school places, and of course the many, many potholes!

There are some very significant changes coming to Cambridge in the next few years, which will affect the city and the surrounding area for many years to come. Romsey will be right in the middle of any city-wide changes, containing 2 of the main roads into the city, as well as being right next to the station. 

These changes have the potential to drastically affect Romsey as an area and as a community, and so Romsey needs a councillor who will listen to residents, who will communicate what is going on and what is being planned, and will work to ensure the changes don’t destroy Romsey’s unique character. That is what I will do, if elected as Romsey’s county councillor.

One of the reasons I decided to stand was that I didn’t feel like I knew what the council or my local councillors were doing. I didn’t really hear from them, and didn’t know what they did. If I’m elected, I will make sure that that is not the case for me - you will hear from me and know what I am doing, I will actually come and talk to you, and I will represent our area to the best of my ability, with regular updates posted on the Romsey Lib Dems website.

So, on the 4th May, please do vote. It’s important. Vote for who you think will be the best councillor for Romsey - as it will make a huge difference in the next few years.

Canvassing with a stammer

When I go canvassing round Cambridge, when I talk to someone on the doorstep, the first thing they usually notice is that I have a stammer (also called a stutter). Basically, I can have problems articulating words, which in my case usually manifest at the start of words or sentances.

If you've seen the film The King's Speech, that's a very good portrayal of what a stammer is. Stammering is generally considered to be a neurological condition, although the causes are unknown, and it affects people in different ways and to different severities. It usually starts in early childhood, during initial speech development, and can cause someone to repeat certain syllables, or to not be able to say anything at all. It has no effect on thought patterns or intelligence, only on the neurological functions needed to speak. In my cause, it's relatively minor - it doesn't affect my day-to-day speech too much, although it can be accentuated in certain situations, or when I'm stressed or nervous. There's no outright cure, although there are some ways to lessen the impact.

The best way I can describe what it feels like to me is that my brain moves faster than my mouth - I know exactly what I want to say, but my mouth and facial muscles don't move fast enough, and so they lock up - and I can't say anything. It's mostly just annoying, but it can get really frustrating, especially when there's someone who is standing there, wondering why I knocked on their door just to gawp at them like a fish! There are a few strategies I use to help - running words together, avoiding words starting with certain syllables - but how much it affects me on a particular day can vary hugely, depending on how I'm feeling, what's happened that day, how busy I am, and many other things.

I'm naturally quite an introverted chap (my stammer probably has something to do with that), so speaking to people on the doorstep doesn't come naturally to me - so I tend to stammer more when canvassing than in day-to-day life. But, after all, someone has to do it, and I want to make a difference to my area - to actually listen to people who aren't normally listened to. So I talk to people, and try to solve problems people are having, and try to make my community just that bit better.

And if you want to get involved in your local community, you want to go speak to people, but you're worried about canvassing - don't be. It's really not that bad. The vast majority of people are very friendly; the worst you'll get is someone saying 'Now's not a good time' and they shut the door again. In over 3 years of canvassing with a stammer, the number of times people have sweared at me or reacted angrily (which really doesn't help my stammer by the way) I can count on my fingers. If I can do it with a mild-to-moderate stammer, so can you!

So if I come to your doorstep, and it's a particularly bad day for my stammer - maybe someone told me to 'Get on with it!' a few doors down - thank you for your patience. I know exactly what I want to say, I will get there in the end, there's not much you or anyone can do to help at that moment, but I'll get there. And I'll listen to you, and hopefully I can help you instead.

Council cuts?

At the full County Council meeting in December, the Council voted to reverse both the cuts to the gritting routes, and the dimming & switching off of streetlights in towns and cities in Cambridgeshire (rural roads will still be affected). These are much-needed reversals - the dimmed streetlights in particular caused significant problems around Cambridge - but these reversals have been paid for out of the general reserves.

This is in no way sustainable, and highlights the bind the council is in - over the next 5 years, the Council is forced to make £123 million of savings due to cuts in funding from national government. This is around a quarter of the council's budget (for comparison, the total cost of services in 2015-16 was £412.2 million, and the council spent £147.3 million in capital investments). In 2016-17 alone, the council has to make £40 million in savings. The reduction in streetlights and gritting was meant to be around £1 million of this.

Most of these cuts are due to the government grant being removed - in 2014, the council received £84 million from the government; in 2019, it will be £0. The general reserves lets the council cushion service cuts like the streetlights & gritting in the short term, but at some point there will be no more reserves left - and then, irregardless of the impact or outcry, vital services that people depend on will have to reduce or stop altogether. And this will reduce the quality of life for thousands of the most vulnerable across the county, and potentially cost lives.

Last month we had the cross-county manifesto conference for the County & Mayoral elections in May. The completed manifesto is due to come out at the end of February, but in all our discussions the sheer scale of the budgetary challenge facing the council affected everything we talked about, from transport to social care to schools to the environment.

The maximum council tax raise the council can apply each year is 2%, plus an additional 2%-3% for social care (a 2% rise is an extra 45p a week for a Band C property); if the council applied this raise over the next few years, this will really help ameliorate the cuts and cushion the reduced funding to council services. But the Conservative and UKIP groups on the council refuse to raise council tax; the Conservatives are only willing to accept the 2% social care levy, and UKIP are against any raise whatsoever.

At some point, if no council tax raise is forthcoming, councillors will be forced to make decisions on which services must be cut - services that people depend on. I hope it doesn't reach that stage.