22nd March 2026

🇬🇧 Green Party Leader Zack Polanski REFUSES to condemn ABORTION up until birth and non-stun slaughter when confronted in Norwich whilst campaigning.

Under heavy questioning he tells VP Journalist @WillColeshill to "Piss Off" for asking questions. pic.twitter.com/3j4l8yqLjE

— VoxPopuli (@vpopulimedia) March 21, 2026

11th March 2026

Stockport councillors are set to approve an extension to the council’s long-standing services agreement with Totally Local Company when Cabinet meets on 17 March.

The decision concerns the “Overarching Agreement” between the council and the company, which sets the framework for how many day-to-day council services are delivered across the borough.

What Totally Local Company Does

Totally Local Company (often known as TLC) is a council-owned organisation responsible for delivering a wide range of operational services on behalf of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

These services include:

• Highway maintenance and repairs
• Street cleaning and waste-related work
• Parks and green space maintenance
• Grounds maintenance and landscaping
• Building maintenance and other operational services

Rather than delivering these services directly through council departments, the council commissions TLC to carry out the work under a formal agreement.

Why the Agreement Is Being Extended

The report to Cabinet explains that the Overarching Agreement, originally put in place in 2017, provides the contractual framework that allows the council to commission services from TLC.

The current proposal would extend that agreement, allowing services to continue while the council reviews how operational services should be delivered in the future.

Councillors say extending the arrangement provides stability for services and staff, while also giving the council time to consider longer-term options for service delivery.

Importance for Local Services

Because TLC is responsible for many frontline operational tasks, the agreement directly affects services residents rely on every day — from road repairs and parks maintenance to keeping public spaces clean.

For communities such as Romiley, this means the organisation plays a key role in maintaining local infrastructure and public spaces.

Oversight and Accountability

As a council-owned company, TLC operates commercially but remains accountable to the council through contractual arrangements and governance structures.

The extension being considered by Cabinet is intended to ensure continued oversight and value for money while maintaining service delivery across the borough.

What Happens Next

If Cabinet approves the report, the Overarching Agreement will be extended, allowing the council and Totally Local Company to continue working together while longer-term service arrangements are reviewed.

The decision will affect how many essential local services are delivered across Stockport in the coming years.

21st February 2026

Agenda Item 11 — Governance, Surveillance, and Councillor Conduct

This item has several smaller but important governance updates. It covers legal compliance, oversight, and transparency rather than service delivery.

---

1) RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) – Surveillance Powers

Purpose

• The council must review and approve its policy for using covert surveillance (e.g., CCTV, monitoring staff, or investigating fraud).
• This is required annually by law.

Key points

• Confirms whether the council has used any RIPA powers in the past year.
• Approves the policy and procedures for lawful use going forward.
• Ensures officers are trained and accountable.

Why it matters

• Protects residents’ and staff privacy.
• Prevents misuse of surveillance.
• Maintains legal compliance and transparency.

Practical effect:
Most residents won’t notice anything unless a covert investigation occurs.

---

2) Councillor Conduct Report

Purpose

• Annual report on complaints against councillors.

Key points

• Number of complaints received
• How many were upheld or dismissed
• Trends or lessons learned

Why it matters

• Holds elected officials accountable.
• Informs training or updates to the code of conduct.
• Maintains public trust in local democracy.

Practical effect:
Residents rarely see the details unless a complaint is upheld, but it reassures the public that issues are monitored.

ey points from the 2024/25 reporting year

• 14 complaints were received about councillor conduct over the year.
• These related to conduct by five councillors.
• Of the 14:
  • 11 complaints related to the same matter (linked to two councillors) and were on hold pending external investigation.
  • 3 complaints were considered and closed during the year.
    • 1 was upheld – a councillor breached the code of conduct by commenting on an agenda item after declaring an interest.
    • 1 was rejected – it was found no interest needed to be declared.
    • 1 was partially upheld – inappropriate email comments; councillor apologised and agreed training.
• All councillors involved cooperated with the Monitoring Officer and accepted recommendations (training, apologies).

---

3) GMCA (Greater Manchester Combined Authority) Decisions

Purpose

• Cabinet formally notes any decisions by the GMCA that affect Stockport.

Why it matters

• Ensures local awareness of regional decisions.
• Provides accountability and alignment with local priorities.

---

4) Scrutiny Committee Recommendations

Purpose

• Cabinet responds to recommendations or call-ins from overview/ scrutiny committees.

Why it matters

• Ensures decisions are reviewed before being implemented.
• Provides an extra check on council policy or financial decisions.

---

21st February 2026

This is less about any one saving — and more about what the council’s finances look like over the next decade.

---

The long-term financial story

1) The council isn’t facing a one-off problem

The plan shows a structural funding gap.

That means:

Even if the council changed nothing, costs would still rise faster than income every year.

So budgets must be adjusted repeatedly — not just once.

Why this is happening

Three forces are moving permanently in opposite directions:

Pressure	Direction
Care demand	↑ rising quickly
Government funding	→ mostly flat
Council tax	↑ limited by law

Result: a permanent shortfall.

---

2) Social care now dominates everything

Over time, councils have shifted from service providers to care providers.

The financial trajectory looks like this:

Past council	Future council
Libraries, leisure, local services	Care & safeguarding
Universal services	Targeted statutory services

Meaning:

3) Savings don’t really “end”

More and more of the budget becomes legally unavoidable.

So flexibility shrinks every year.

---

The 4-year plan closes a gap — but the underlying pressures remain.

Therefore the strategy is cyclical:

1. Demand rises
2. Council transforms services
3. Gap temporarily closes
4. Demand rises again

This repeats each budget cycle.

---

4) Reserves buy time, not solutions

The plan uses reserves carefully.

This signals:

• finances are stable short-term
• but long-term balance depends on transformation working

If demand grows faster than expected → future savings must be larger.

---

5) Investment becomes essential (not optional)

The council increasingly relies on:

• regeneration income
• housing development returns
• commercial assets

These help fund services indirectly.

So growth and development policy is now part of social care funding — not separate from it.

---

What this means in practice

For residents

Services won’t suddenly disappear.

Instead they will:

• narrow
• prioritise need
• charge more often
• intervene earlier but for shorter time

Gradual change replaces sudden cuts.

---

For future council tax

Expect regular increases near the legal maximum most years.

Not because of new spending —
because existing obligations cost more annually.

---

For the council’s stability

This is not a crisis budget.

It’s a managed adaptation model:

continuously reshape services to match rising statutory demand.

Financial risk comes mainly from demand shocks (e.g. care placement spikes), not from ordinary operations.

---

The real takeaway

The plan shows the council transitioning into a different type of organisation:

From: a broad local service provider
To: a statutory safety-net authority funded partly by growth and property income

That’s the long-term trajectory implied by the budget — and why so many decisions in the meeting focus on prevention, eligibility and investment rather than expansion.

21st February 2026

Here are the kinds of proposals inside the Medium-Term Financial Plan (Agenda Item 8) of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council that typically generate the strongest public reaction — not because they are the biggest savings, but because they are the most visible or personal.

In council budgeting, controversy ≠ size of saving
It usually equals how directly residents feel it.

---

The proposals most likely to cause local opposition

1) SEND transport changes

This almost always becomes the most contentious issue.

Why

• Affects children with additional needs
• Families depend on predictable arrangements
• Changes feel personal rather than administrative

Typical reaction triggers

• Eligibility tightening
• Independent travel expectations
• Pickup point changes
• Post-16 transport charging
• Route consolidation

Why councils still do it:
Transport is one of the fastest-growing education costs nationally.

👉 Even small rule changes can save large amounts — but impact a small number of families heavily.

---

2) Adult social care eligibility tightening

This creates quieter but deeper concern.

Why

People don’t notice until they need help — then it feels sudden.

What causes complaints

• Care hours reduced after review
• “Needs assessment” thresholds interpreted differently
• Push toward short-term support
• Charges reassessed

Political difficulty:
Hard to protest collectively, but generates MP and councillor casework.

---

3) Fees and charges (especially parking & waste)

Often the most visible everyday impact.

Why controversial

Everyone encounters them, not just service users.

Typical flashpoints:

• Parking price rises in district centres
• Garden waste subscription increases
• Permit or licence costs

These create high public awareness even though financially small.

---

4) Changes to access (phone, face-to-face, buildings)

Residents interpret this as services “disappearing”.

Reaction triggers

• Reduced opening hours
• Appointment-only systems
• Centralised contact centres
• Digital-only processes

This affects older residents disproportionately → generates complaints.

---

5) School place / admissions changes

Usually very localised but intense.

Why

Parents perceive reduced intake numbers as threatening school stability.

Even when caused by falling pupil numbers, it can be interpreted as decline in an area.

---

What usually doesn’t cause much reaction

Even though financially huge:

• Treasury strategy
• Capital financing
• Reserves usage
• Internal restructures
• Borrowing assumptions

Residents rarely notice these directly.

---

The pattern behind council controversy

The public reacts most strongly to changes that are:

Characteristic	Reaction
Personal	Very high
Child-related	Very high
Visible daily	High
Technical finance	Very low
Long-term strategic	Low

So a £200k transport rule change can cause more debate than a £20m borrowing decision.

---

Simple takeaway

From this budget plan, the issues most likely to generate emails, petitions or media coverage are:

1. SEND transport policy
2. Care eligibility reviews
3. Parking & waste charges
4. Service access changes
5. School intake adjustments

Not because they save the most money —
but because residents experience them directly.

---

21st February 2026

Agenda Item 8 — Medium-Term Financial Plan & 2026/27 Budget

This is the main decision of the entire meeting.

Everything earlier (like Item 7’s overspends) feeds into this one.

👉 Item 8 answers:

“Given rising costs and limited funding, how will the council balance its budget over the next four years?”

---

The financial situation

The report sets out a structural funding gap across the period 2026–2030.

That gap exists because:

Costs rising faster than income

Main drivers:

• Adult social care demand
• Children’s placements
• SEND transport
• Inflation on contracts
• Pay increases

Income not keeping up

Councils mainly rely on:

• Council tax
• Business rates
• Government grant

Government funding has not grown at the same rate as service demand.

---

What the council proposes to do

The plan combines four approaches:

1) Council tax increase

Proposed annual rise:
4.99% per year

Breakdown:

• 2.99% general services
• 2% adult social care precept

Meaning:
The council is using the maximum increase allowed without a referendum.

---

2) Savings programme (spending reductions)

A package of recurring savings must be delivered.

These usually come from:

• Service redesign
• Eligibility changes
• Staffing restructuring
• Contract renegotiation
• Digitalisation

Important:
They are typically not labelled as “cuts” but the practical effect can be reduced service access.

---

3) Transformation & efficiency

The council plans to change how services work rather than simply stop them.

Examples:

• Prevention instead of crisis support
• Online services instead of in-person
• Different delivery partners
• Earlier intervention to avoid expensive care

This is intended to permanently lower demand growth.

---

4) Use of reserves (limited)

Savings are phased in over time.

Reserves act as a temporary buffer while changes are implemented — but cannot be relied on long-term.

---

The 4-year forecast logic

The plan is basically:

Year	Strategy
2026/27	Tax rise + start savings
2027/28	Larger service changes
2028/29	Transformation impact
2029/30	Balanced ongoing budget

So the early years rely partly on reserves → later years rely on permanent change.

---

Why this matters

This item determines:

• Your council tax
• Which services change
• Speed of regeneration investment
• Future financial stability

Everything else in the meeting supports this plan.

---

The real policy trade-off

The council is choosing a balance between:

Option	Consequence
Raise tax more	Politically difficult
Cut services faster	Social impact
Borrow more	Financial risk
Transform services	Long implementation time

They chose a mixed approach.

---

The bottom line

Agenda Item 8 is the council’s survival plan for the next decade:

Raise council tax to the legal limit, gradually change how services work, and reduce costs over several years to close a long-term funding gap.

12th February 2026

https://www.libdemvoice.org/what-is-the-point-of-libdem-conference-79135.html

On Tuesday morning, Liberal Democrat social media channels teased supporters with news of a “big announcement” at 09:00. Expectations were, naturally, raised. When a political party primes its members and voters in such a way, one anticipates something weighty: a major defection, the implementation of a flagship Conference policy, or a decisive shift in political direction.

Instead, what arrived was a proposal to rebrand the Treasury as the “Department of Growth.”

At first glance, the move feels underwhelming — a dull, inoffensive and uninspiring ghost of New Labour. We are told the department’s functions will be reorganised and that it will be relocated to Birmingham. For a policy supposedly rooted in economic growth, however, this resembles an expensive game of administrative musical chairs.

Relocating a major Whitehall department would not be cheap. Rebranding would not be cheap. Structural upheaval would not be cheap. If efficiency and growth are the objectives, this seems a curious place to begin.

There is also the uncomfortable matter of branding. The acronym — Department of Growth (DOG) — lands awkwardly close to Elon Musk’s much-publicised “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). At a time when British politics is already saturated with borrowed rhetoric and imported culture wars, the last thing we need is to echo slogans associated with MAGA-style politics. At least red baseball caps have not yet accompanied the launch — but the resemblance is striking enough to raise eyebrows.

Yet beyond questions of cost and optics lies a deeper concern: process.

The Liberal Democrats have long prided themselves on being a member-led party. Our Federal Committees, Federal Council and Federal Board are composed of members elected by the membership and accountable to it. Policy is debated, amended and adopted at Conference on the basis of one member, one vote. This is not an optional extra or a quaint tradition. It is the democratic heart of the Party and a defining point of difference from Reform, the Conservatives and, increasingly, Labour.

Which makes the presentation of this announcement all the more puzzling. It has been communicated as settled Party Policy, yet there appears to have been no Conference debate or vote authorising such a change. Conference exists precisely to ensure that the direction of the Party is determined by members — not solely by the Parliamentary Party. Circumventing that process, even for something framed as technical or presentational, chips away at what makes the Liberal Democrats distinct.

There is a broader pattern that many members have begun to notice. When Conference passes ambitious policy — from Free to Be Who You Are to repeated motions supporting Universal Basic Income — the Parliamentary Party often appears markedly quieter. Conference-approved policy sometimes seems to be treated as advisory rather than authoritative.

This creates an uncomfortable asymmetry. When it comes to bold, member-driven proposals, progress stalls. When it comes to centrally driven rebrands, announcements are made with fanfare.

Of course, parliamentary leadership requires agility. Politics moves quickly, and opposition parties must respond to events. But agility should not come at the expense of accountability. The strength of the Liberal Democrats has always been that our leadership derives authority from our members. That democratic legitimacy is our greatest asset — and it must not be eroded for the sake of a headline.

If the Party believes that restructuring the Treasury into a “Department of Growth” is the right course, then let that argument be made openly. Bring it to Conference. Allow members to debate the costs, the symbolism and the practicalities. Win the case.

Because growth in trust — within our own ranks as much as in the country — depends not on rebranding exercises, but on remaining true to the democratic principles we champion.