Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Councillor pay rise talks
Newbury.net - A Community website for Newbury, Berkshire, UK    News    News Stories from newbury.net  ›  Councillor pay rise talks
Users Browsing Forum
Greenham Common and 17 Guests

Councillor pay rise talks  This thread currently has 3,656 views. Print
2 Pages 1 2 » All Recommend Thread
Administrator
September 22, 2009, 3:33pm Report to Moderator
Administrator Group
Posts: 858
Posts Per Day: 0.78
Taxpayers will have to shell out an extra £10,000 to pay for extra perks for a handful of West Berkshire councillors.

The Tory administration has added five new committees in recent years, and an independent expenses panel has recommended that they get an extra bonus on top of the basic £6,000 a year councillor ‘pay’, due to an increase in meetings.

Councillors already cost local taxpayers £500,000 a year in expenses – equivalent to a 1% council tax rise.

Councillors meet on Thursday to discuss the issue.
Logged Offline
Private Message
40
September 22, 2009, 4:39pm Report to Moderator
Guest User
Lets pay them properly - otherwise pay peanuts get monkeys.  However, if we had quality we wouldn't need quantity. Do that and potentially there is a lower cost overall.  Oh well, that won't happen.
Logged
Reply: 1 - 18
user23.3
September 22, 2009, 6:34pm Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,664
Posts Per Day: 1.52
Up to 6 grand a year? Seriously, checkout staff in supermarkets get paid more.

Isn't it about time we started paying the people who make the big decisions in West Berkshire a decent wage that doesn't exclude many people from standing for election?
Logged
Private Message Reply: 2 - 18
blackdog
September 22, 2009, 6:45pm Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
Quoted from user23.3
Up to 6 grand a year? Seriously, checkout staff in supermarkets get paid more.

Isn't it about time we started paying the people who make the big decisions in West Berkshire a decent wage that doesn't exclude many people from standing for election?


Being a Councillor is not a full time job - most of them have those as well. Most, if not all of the rest are pensioners.

Do we really want to go down the road of full time local politicians?
Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 3 - 18
brian
September 22, 2009, 7:02pm Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
We could reduce that budget by getting rid of the party structure.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 4 - 18
user23.3
September 22, 2009, 8:00pm Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,664
Posts Per Day: 1.52
Quoted from brian
We could reduce that budget by getting rid of the party structure.
Banning political parties might not be the best move.

Logged
Private Message Reply: 5 - 18
brian
September 22, 2009, 10:12pm Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
Quoted from user23.3
Banning political parties might not be the best move.



Why is that then ??
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 6 - 18
Meddler
September 23, 2009, 11:39am Report to Moderator

Posts: 192
Posts Per Day: 0.19
Quoted from user23.3
Up to 6 grand a year? Seriously, checkout staff in supermarkets get paid more.

Isn't it about time we started paying the people who make the big decisions in West Berkshire a decent wage that doesn't exclude many people from standing for election?


But they're not the people who make the 'big decisions' are they? They're there to rubberstamp what highly paid officials want. The 'lay' aspect is important, but when done badly just leads to loads of thickos having the true impact of things (ie green meanies, Park Way delays) examined.

I don't know how the Tories have the nerve to cut back on planners, admin staff etc, and pay themselves more!


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 7 - 18
user23.3
September 23, 2009, 5:05pm Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,664
Posts Per Day: 1.52
Quoted from brian
Why is that then ??
Banning political parties can often be one of the first steps in implementing any form of dictatorship.

Logged
Private Message Reply: 8 - 18
brian
September 24, 2009, 10:40pm Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
Quoted from user23.3
Banning political parties can often be one of the first steps in implementing any form of dictatorship.



To have a dictatorship, one needs a dictator, something like Mr Carter.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 9 - 18
GMR
September 25, 2009, 11:05am Report to Moderator

Posts: 134
Posts Per Day: 0.12
I read in the  paper that WBC were in the red so how can they talk about pay rises?
Logged
Private Message Reply: 10 - 18
Greenham Common
September 25, 2009, 11:49am Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,974
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.80
Location: Equine way
Never mind, it is barely 1% of the total budget...bloody old people.  
Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 11 - 18
blackdog
September 25, 2009, 7:25pm Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
Quoted from Greenham Common
Never mind, it is barely 1% of the total budget...bloody old people.  


It is interesting that we have to foot the bill because Sovereign find that one of their old folks homes is uneconomical. Why don't they have to find alternative places for the displaced folk - after all they own/run most of the places they will be relocated to. And what is going to happen to the place that is closed? I suspect that it won't be handed back to the Council (assuming it was an ex-council home like most of Sovereign's property).

If Sovereign are acting in a commercial way, should their charitable status be removed?
Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 12 - 18
blackdog
September 25, 2009, 7:40pm Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
Quoted from Administrator
Councillors already cost local taxpayers £500,000 a year in expenses – equivalent to a 1% council tax rise.


WBC's budget is running at around £100M, 25% of which is raised via Council Tax. So £500k is 2% of the Council Tax.

And repayment of their currently projected overspend this year (£820k) will require a 3.3% increase in Council Tax - unless they can persuade central government to share the burden (not sure how likely that is).

Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 13 - 18
Greenham Common
September 25, 2009, 10:10pm Report to Moderator

Posts: 1,974
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.80
Location: Equine way
Quoted from blackdog
It is interesting that we have to foot the bill because Sovereign find that one of their old folks homes is uneconomical. Why don't they have to find alternative places for the displaced folk - after all they own/run most of the places they will be relocated to. And what is going to happen to the place that is closed? I suspect that it won't be handed back to the Council (assuming it was an ex-council home like most of Sovereign's property).  If Sovereign are acting in a commercial way, should their charitable status be removed?

Articulated brilliantly what I was thinking. I thought HAs were obliged to deal with these issues and I'd say homeless old folk would come quite close to the top of the list of most important.

Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 14 - 18
2 Pages 1 2 » All Recommend Thread
Print