I WAS one of a small band of council tax protesters who reportedly caused a commotion when Hampshire county councillors arrived in Winchester to vote on an already pre-determined 4.9% increase.

On arrival, at least a dozen members indicated that the level of increase had yet to be decided and voted on. "Pull the other leg, it has bells on it" and please do not insult the intelligence of those people protesting.

Most of us are aware that a Cabinet of ten members dreams up and discuss agenda items, which are then supposedly sanctioned by scrutiny committees. This is how democracy should work, so is council tax treated differently or are councillors treated similarly to the preverbal mushroom?

We all know that this highly rated body of people who are elected to represent our interests by spending our taxes wisely, are basically incapable of influencing or changing government policy regarding the system.

However, we have the right to endeavour to bring their attention to the unfairness of this iniquitous form of taxation by not spending too much of taxpayers' money on projects, which we do not necessarily require or want.

Many of these projects were highlighted to the small number of councillors who were courteous enough to stop and listen to our concerns. Similar to any form of politician, the response we received was "we hear what you say but are powerless to act".

I must therefore conclude that they are party whipped.

However, the main reason for my attendance was to highlight the fact that the increase in Band D rated properties since the Labour Government came to power is a staggering 123%.

During the same period, the rate of inflation has only increased by 39.7%.

My council tax bill now equates to 9.5% of my total fixed household income.

How can this tax, based on inflated market values of "bricks and mortar" be fair? My wife and I have spent the last 40 years fairly ensuring that we have a roof over our head in retirement, only to be unfairly penalised when we finally expect to spend the autumn/winter of our lives in relative comfort and security.

One councillor confronted me and asked why I was complaining because "he enjoyed a very good lifestyle living in wonderful Hampshire". Needless to say, he did not hang around to allow me to ask what level of pension he enjoyed or to ask what his annual expense claim was.

My final confusion relates to press statements made by council leader Ken Thornber prior to the finalisation of the new rate.

We all appreciate that Hampshire received a meagre 2.7% grant from Whitehall, so why does he wax lyrical about the council being "four star rated" and then complain about being capped.

He then informs us that he thinks that we would agree to a 7% increase if a high level of services were guaranteed.

If the county is so highly rated by the Audit Commission, why do we need more government funding or a council tax increase above 5%?

By attaining these high standards set by the Commission over the past five years based on the present levels of grants and council tax, he is falling into a government set trap.

They will allow him to maintain these standards he so cherishes and then continue to dish out low grants and ignore his protests relating to the cuts he has to make to services to remain faithful to this highly sought after status.

Yes, I am still confused and eagerly await a response from someone to inform me that I completely ignorant and have misunderstood the workings of HCC and refer me to the grant reduced local CAB or even allocate me one of the 172 redundant home care staff.

A tax based on income or even some form of local income tax would be much fairer, but one based on property value is a definite no.

TONY MUNDY, Winchester.