![]() |
![]() |
| Guildford Liberal Democrats | <office@guildfordlibdems.org.uk> | 9th September 2010 |
Tories fail to vote as Government forces Surrey to cut Police9.30.00am BST (GMT +0100) Wed 22nd Jul 2009 Despite massive public support for the Surrey Police, the government has won a vote in parliament confirming a spending "cap" that will force the police to shed a further 48 jobs, including 31 front line police officers. Astonishingly, although some Surrey MPs spoke against this move, when it came to a vote not a single Conservative voted against it. That was left to the Liberal Democrats, supported by two rebel Labour MPs and one DUP member from Northern Ireland. Following this vote, the High Court refused the Surrey Police Authority's application for a judicial review, so last Friday they formally agreed to set a revised budget that will mean all Surrey council's sending out fresh council tax bills, charging residents £3.24 less for a band D property. Returning £1.6 million in this way is estimated to cost approximately £1.2 million - which will in turn force a further 24 police job cuts next year. Posts being cut will affect Neighbourhood Policing, Crime Reduction, Youth Work, Highways Patrols and Serious Crime amongst other roles, on top of the massive staff cut backs already agreed. Ironically this perverse government decision coincided with the publication of a report by former Home Secretary David Blunkett, recommending that in future Police Authorities should not be capped unless the local authorities in their area supported this.
Bookmark this story at:
Related News Stories:Mon 8th Mar 2010: Surrey Police Plans for more Bobbies on the Beat. Fri 1st Jan 2010: Surrey Police Seven Point Plan. Tue 13th Oct 2009: Surrey Tories refuse to act on climate change . Thu 11th Jun 2009: Sat 6th Jun 2009: Lib Dem gains across Surrey - Labour and the Tories lose seats. Mon 18th May 2009: Published and promoted by Guildford Liberal Democrats, The Hall, 53a Woking Road, Guildford, Surrey GU1 1QD. The views expressed are those of the party, not of the service provider. |