This is the speech I delivered to full council on Monday to propose the Liberal Democrat amendment to the budget

Lord Mayor, I hope that the recent court ruling against councils conducting prayers does not prevent councillors from using prayers as a framing device for their speeches, because to me this budget brings to mind the prayer said at the start of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know one from the other.”

There is much that we cannot change here in this chamber. Whatever we do today the financial situation of the council and the country as a whole will remain very trying. The position taken by members opposite that a significant reduction in expenditure across the public sector could in some unspecified way be avoided, which was tenuous last time we debated a budget has collapsed altogether in the intervening time. Austerity measures have become practically universal across the developed world and are being applied to countries with much smaller deficits than the UK. And excuse me for being sceptical that where Obama has failed, Miliband will succeed. Equally was the statement by Ed Balls that and I quote ‘we are going to have to keep all these cuts.’ When even the shadow chancellor cannot maintain the illusion that a Labour government could magic away the cuts, all members of this authority should desist from propagating it.

While we are discussing the subject of central government’s contribution it is worth noting how much of the scope for new investment which Cllr Turner has attributed to his own ‘talents’ is in fact down to his misjudgement of the government’s intentions. The apocalyptic designs attributed to Westminster by Labour councillors have failed to materialise and measures as diverse as the New Homes Bonus, the localisation of business rates, self financing of the HRA and the grant to freeze council tax have given the council breathing room. It is just a pity that the administration failed to foresee this, as the Lib Dem group did, two years ago and instead made the misguided decision to cut services in order to boost balances.

Nonetheless, there are occasions on which – without acknowledging so – the administration is making constructive moves to follow in the footsteps of the coalition, which this group welcomes. While we would rephase the spending of education money to ensure sufficient time is available to consider how best to spend it, we feel that this is a valuable compliment to the pupil premium in terms of investing in the education of those with the fewest opportunities. It especially warms our hearts to see Labour councillors suggesting spending money to support the Lib Dem-inspired Green Deal. We would, however, like to go beyond mere advertising to enabling Oxford residents to receive the benefits of this scheme before its national launch.

And while we are on the subject of following the Liberal Democrat lead, it is great to see the investment in that most unglamorous but very necessary service: public toilets, which let us not forget two years ago they were proposing to close swathes of.  It is also most welcome that after much delay that this groups proposal for pro-active enforcement within the private rented sector have been picked up.

One thing that I fear is rapidly moving into the category of things we cannot change is the administration’s leisure policy. As we have heard the costs of changing course are becoming prohibitively high. This may lie behind the difficulty of the Green party’s failure to get approval from the section 151 officer. Despite the absence of an alternative proposal on swimming pools in our amendment, we remain of the conviction that a situation where the eastern half of city is without a swimming pool inside the ring road is a mistake but we recognise with great regret that this is precisely the mistake the administration has made. This budget meeting is not the place to correct this error and we have avoided trying to do so but believe me a future Lib Dem administration would do whatever it can to put a swimming pool back where the people of Oxford want it.

So much for the things we cannot change, what then of the things we can? Where the council has discretion I contend – and few here will disagree – its priority should be to protect the vulnerable and to eliminate disadvantage. Judged by this standard our amendment is a manifest improvement on the administration’s proposals. We have heard from the public addresses how vital the Dial-a-Ride service is, our amendment protects it. We all know see the good work Oxford’s voluntary groups do, our amendment invests in them. And we all know how little space there is in Oxford’s council housing, so our amendment builds more of it.

The price for this is partly less money for local councillors. It is quite wrong to practice austerity for you but not for us, we should all to coin a phrase all be in this together. Though not as wrong as trying to score political points by impotently demanding self-sacrifice at the county but recoiling from it here at the city where they have the power to actually practice it. We also take the position that the New Homes Bonus is there to be spent. Reducing the council’s prudential borrowing such that its interest payments will fall by a sum equal to less than 0.001% of its budget at the expense of help for local charities, a second Dial-a-Ride service and additional council house extensions is the sign of an administration so convinced of its egalitarian convictions that it has lost sight of the need to put them into practice.

Now I move onto the Green party amendment. While we are sympathetic to much of what they are proposing it is fundamentally flawed. Despite having burst the boundaries of what the S151 found acceptable, the centre piece of their amendment from a social justice point of view a very temporary jobs fund that lasts only till year 2 of the budget cycle while our additional grants funding is a more permanent addition to the council’s finances. This marriage of financial incompetence with shallow commitment to a fairer city is simply not good enough, not by a long shot.

Council, you have before you proposals that go as far as is practicable at this time in promoting social justice. And proposals that fall far short. Please have the wisdom to tell one from the other.