THE expected fractious, antagonistic, ill-humoured and at times childish full meeting of Thurrock Council was played out this evening when the democratic process was again challenged and little credit befell many of the speakers as a 4.99 per cent increase in council tax was pushed through by Conservative councillors.

The rise is made up of two parts, a three per cent increase in adult social care and a 1.99 rise in the general taxation budget.

Conservative leader Cllr Rob Gledhill laid out why his group believed both rises were necessary and glossed over many of the controversial financial decisions that have dogged the council in recent months as he told members the budget addressed both the ongoing impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, wider cost pressures and the council's decision to pause its investment to generate revenue strategy.

He outlined the potential shortfalls in revenue and set out a plan to cover it through use of the council's reserves, cost-cutting measures, a jobs freeze and through raising council tax revenue.

Labour leader Cllr John Kent described the budget as 'the thinnest I have seen in my time at the council. There is very little detail' and he went on to target senior officer payments and agency costs which he believed are too high.

"The layers of management that have sprung up over the last few years are bizarre. Bureaucracy has run away from us."

He said it was with regret his group could not support the budget because it was inappropriate to the times the borough was going through.

He added: "It is only right to talk about Covid which has ravaged Thurrock as it has done the rest of the country. When the pandemic first hit the country there was an incredible coming together of people in the community.

"But as we came through the pandemic it did expose some of the weaknesses that ten years of austerity has meant. That's the backdrop to the budget-setting"

He went on to suggest that the wrong targets had been picked in for cost-savings, highlighting the increased number of highly paid officers while there were cuts to the terms and conditions of front line workers by five per cent.

He also called on the council to look again at how it traded its services.

Cllr Gledhill responded by saying: "You are absolutely right, there has been a financial impact from Covid that has impacted on us all.

"But we can't have it all, we have to be quite clear about that because of the reduction in amount of income."

He then mocked Cllr Kent's assertions about the increase on senior managers. Cllr Kent had highlighted the growth of a highly paid chain of command in environmental services - Cllr Gledhill said: "Yes you are probably right. In 2015 there were only four managers because you left us no department through your cost-cutting.

"We are hearing opposition for opposition's sake from Labour."

Independent group leader Gary Byrne approached the issue with his usual brusque and abrasive style and said: "I can never be found guilty of opposition for opposition's sake."

He took up the cudgel on behalf of lowly paid staff bearing the brunt of planned cuts, while senior officers remained inordinately well-rewarded and implied the pressure on the lower paid staff came from the top. He discounted statements by Cllr Gledhill that the union representing workers in the environmental service department who are currently balloting on strike action had acted unreasonably.

He said: "Can I ask why the CEO sent individual letters to union members and by-passed the union?"

He then turned his angst on the budget process and the Tories, saying I have had a number of your lot ask me what the alternative budget is. You are really out of touch with what is happening out there, businesses are in trouble, thousands can't meet their rates, residents don't know where their next meal is coming from and there are people who sit indoors with their coats and scarves on because they can't afford heating. Your budget is just adding fuel to the fire.

"You have senior directors who have assistant directors. We have 11 senior pay bands and too many layers of management. You don't look deeply enough into value for money. I don't see any outside the box of thinking.

"You should be presenting a more commercial budget before mugging off our residents."

Cllr Fraser Massey said: "Thurrock is among the bottom five on terms of deprivation in Essex. I will support the increase in adult social care but I cannot support the general fund increase at this time. I think it is a really hard budget to deliver."

Fellow unaligned independent Cllr John Allen said: "It hits a large section of the population of Thurrock hard. I support the three per cent adult social care. However, I do not support the 1.99 general fund aspect of the rise in council tax. It is not acceptable with the current difficulties that Thurrock residents have.

"Families in Thurrock are finding it increasingly hard. Some do not know where their next meal is coming from."

A succession of councillors then spoke, with the Conservative cutting deep with their rhetoric and comment - somewhat belying their oft-quoted phrase that they do not engage in 'dog whistle politics'.

Cllr James Halden set the tone by saying: "I have never known a Labour group to be so vicious and so mean-spirited and dangerous.

"We are investing so much in so many vulnerable areas. It is nasty and churlish that you are arguing over 99 pence a week. It's shameful. Does it make you proud you are seeking votes by choking off millions of pounds of investment?"

Tory member after Tory member echoed his views with former independent member and Tory turncoat Allen Mayes contributing his view that there was a 'love in between Labour and the Independents' which was "simply immoral. This is why I joined the Conservatives, they are actually doing grown up politics."

Another to switch from independent was Cllr Luke Spillman has delivered his view, saying: "Labour have really hung the vulnerable and the needy out to dry. They have become the nasty party of Thurrock.

"We have had a catastrophic decrease in revenue and yet Labour are trying to take advantage of that for a cheap headline. This really is the most disgraceful thing and you don't even believe in what you are doing. There must be a huge amount of unease in the Labour group. Do the right thing for the most vulnerable people in Thurrock."

For Labour Cllr Sara Muldowney said: "This proposal should set out a framework for the medium term, not just the next 12 months. We are expecting people to pay for the Conservative mistakes.

"The controversial investment strategy the Conservatives promised is not delivering the returns so we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

"We have had Conservative councillors insisting for months that there is no problem. I would have more sympathy if that had not happened.

"Be in no doubt the =Conservative councillors have completely failed Thurrock residents and now they are going to make them pay for those mistakes.

"This is going to be a massive bombshell to residents. Why should they bear the cost of Conservative financial mismanagement?"

Various Labour members rebutted the abuse and in return condemned the Conservatives for their shallow politics, failed investments and lack of honesty, but it would be fair to say they took a bit of a verbal battering as more Tories chewed up time with accusations.

And time was to prove important as the meeting edged towards the two and a half hours set for the meeting.

With a host of other questions and items still to debate Labour asked for an extension to the meeting, but the Tories voted to shut it down oce votes had taken place on the budget leaving a number of tough questions they were going to have to face unanswered.

They concerned issues including damp and mould in council houses, a timetable for upgrading community facilities like Hathaway Park, what was happening with the care of vulnerable children, HGV mitigation measures planned in West Thurrock & South Stifford, 'when will the collection of brown bins resume?' and older residents in sheltered housing having to pay extra for security gates.

With an election looming - and no further full council meetings before it, they were bullets the Tories seemed quite happy to dodge.

Cllr Byrne was distinctly unhappy too, he wanted to speak on a number of issues but as has become the norm now in online virtual meetings, the right to speak on items like points of order and interject additional questions has been denied members.

His only outlet was social media and he took to it to say "I was muted throughout, my right to speak was withheld. Tory, Tory Hallelujah.

At the end of the debate it came down to a series of recorded votes. The vote for a three per cent increase to be spent on adult social care - which did feature an attempt by the ever persistent Cllr Byrne to make his points once his muted microphone was opened, though he was eventually silenced without voting - went 30-14 in favour.

A second recorded vote over the additional 1.99 per cent followed and again was a Tory-dominated affair - though the actual voting numbers were not announced.

The full council meeting can be viewed via this link.

And the full report with financial details can be found here.