A new post advertised on the West Berkshire website should improve the performance of the Lib Dem opposition. The post carries an annual salary of £30,851- £36,313 per annum, pro rata for 15 hours per week.
"This part time post within the Policy and Communication Team offers an ideal opportunity for someone interested in local politics. The Group Executive will be required to provide a wide range of high level strategic and administrative assistance to the Leader, Chair and other Members of the Liberal Democrat Group."
"This role will give the successful applicant a unique opportunity to work closely with local elected members in providing effective opposition within the context of a local authority."
Labour Party spokesman Richard Garvie was scathing about the proposal. "All they had to do was ask and I would have done it for free on condition that the money set aside be paid towards providing the elderly and disabled with services that were so cruelly cut this year. The council continue to axe services for the vulnerable, yet the administration of the authority gets more excessive each and every year. Elected members should do their own research, it came out at the executive members meeting last week that David Rendel (opposition spokesman for finance) doesn't even attend briefings with the finance department. It is completely barmy, and there needs to be some kind of quality control put in place to ensure that if people in Mr Rendel's position cannot be bothered to attend briefings, there should be a system in place to remove him and install somebody who wants to make a difference. It's not a problem exclusive to the Liberal Democrats, there is so much waste behind the scenes simply because elected members rely on the officers to do everything for them. The question on everybodys lips will surely be 'Why do we pay elected members'???".
A new post advertised on the West Berkshire website should improve the performance of the Lib Dem opposition. The post carries an annual salary of £30,851- £36,313 per annum, pro rata for 15 hours per week.
"This part time post within the Policy and Communication Team offers an ideal opportunity for someone interested in local politics. The Group Executive will be required to provide a wide range of high level strategic and administrative assistance to the Leader, Chair and other Members of the Liberal Democrat Group."
"This role will give the successful applicant a unique opportunity to work closely with local elected members in providing effective opposition within the context of a local authority."
Labour Party spokesman Richard Garvie was scathing about the proposal. "All they had to do was ask and I would have done it for free on condition that the money set aside be paid towards providing the elderly and disabled with services that were so cruelly cut this year. The council continue to axe services for the vulnerable, yet the administration of the authority gets more excessive each and every year. Elected members should do their own research, it came out at the executive members meeting last week that David Rendel (opposition spokesman for finance) doesn't even attend briefings with the finance department. It is completely barmy, and there needs to be some kind of quality control put in place to ensure that if people in Mr Rendel's position cannot be bothered to attend briefings, there should be a system in place to remove him and install somebody who wants to make a difference. It's not a problem exclusive to the Liberal Democrats, there is so much waste behind the scenes simply because elected members rely on the officers to do everything for them. The question on everybodys lips will surely be 'Why do we pay elected members'???".
I think there might be a slight conflict of interest, the local Labour Party Community Organiser applying to be an administrator for the Liberal Democrat group. I would have though anyone with even a passing interest in politics might have realised this.
There's nothing to stop anyone applying for the post I guess then using the money to fund their own community projects and you can't blame the bloke for trying I suppose, but if this is indicative of his grasp of local politics I suspect he might not get the gig.
I think there might be a slight conflict of interest, the local Labour Party Community Organiser applying to be an administrator for the Liberal Democrat group. I would have though anyone with even a passing interest in politics might have realised this.
There's nothing to stop anyone applying for the post I guess then using the money to fund their own community projects and you can't blame the bloke for trying I suppose, but if this is indicative of his grasp of local politics I suspect he might not get the gig.
Who would want the position of working for the Lib Liars? Like applying for the job of captain of the Titanic just after it had hit the iceberg in my opinion!
I think there might be a slight conflict of etc etc.
The point that someone out there would be very happy to do this on a voluntary basis seems to have escaped the Official West Berkshire Council spokesperson on Newbury.net. But why the frickin hell is this being advertised as a paid post? Why not look for a volunteer for such an obviously political post?
From what I hear the Powers That Be are busily recruiting volunteers for front line posts. The kind of jobs which pay £15K a year.
So, why put so much effort into recruiting for such junior posts without touching the senior management/specialist jobs which generate so much of the highly expensive non-front-line overhead?
I'm sure there are plenty of people who would take on this work on a voluntary basis. There's a wealth of talent out there just itching to get involved. Think of the (literally) thousands of political science graduates leaving universities this year who'd willingly do this as interns. I agree this isn't ideal - in an ideal world we'd want all young people to have paid jobs - but we're in crisis, aren't we Mr Jones? So far you've only implemented 30% of the cuts you have to make and here you are taking on paid help. WTF?
And, more generally, the council attempting to recruit volunteers to do the policy making, advisory and other back-office/policy won/IT/web designer jobs? I think we should be told.
"This role will give the successful applicant a unique opportunity to work closely with local elected members in providing effective opposition within the context of a local authority."
Thinking about this whilst out for my morning constitutional, it occurred to me that now not only will officers tell our local politicians what to do, they will also be telling them what to think!
The point that someone out there would be very happy to do this on a voluntary basis
How does the salary paid for this position make it more of a conflict of interest?
Surely whether it pays nothing or £100,000 the Labour Party Community Organiser effectively applying to help organise the Liberal Democrats isn't right and if someone is so ready jump ship from one party to another to further their political career perhaps this brings into question their integrity.
But why put so much effort into recruiting for such junior posts without touching the senior management/specialist jobs which generate so much of the highly expensive non-front-line overhead?
As I understand it, they already have with redundancies in all areas.
Quoted from 26
Thinking about this whilst out for my morning constitutional, it occurred to me that now not only will officers tell our local politicians what to do, they will also be telling them what to think!
Whilst I'm sure that's unlikely to be the case at the moment I'm positive that it's most likely to be Richard's motivation for wanting to do this.
How does the salary paid for this position make it more of a conflict of interest?
if someone is so ready jump ship from one party to another to further their political career perhaps this brings into question their integrity.
I don't think most people would question the integrity of Churchill, or even Mosley or Powell for that matter. Nigel Farage and George Galloway seem to have firm convictions for people who've been in other parties.
In any case, you only need 3 seats to qualify for a political assistant at WBC. So ironically, if Labour had won more seats, Garvie would be spending £30k of our taxes to hire his own Malcolm Tucker
How does the salary paid for this position make it more of a conflict of interest?
It doesn't. My point was whether they have pursued the idea of filling this post on a voluntary basis rather than shelling out £30-35K we don't have. Ditto other back office posts. My guess is that councillors, who I think even they would admit are a rather egocentric bunch, rather like to have a paid lackey to boss around and would look down their noses at a mere volunteer. Or is there some other reason? There are huge numbers of policy wonks in their 50s taking voluntary redundancy from the civil service and even from other local authorities - on very good terms - who would like nothing better than to do this sort of thing in their now entirely free time.
A general policy of offering all vacancies to volunteers first would make sense, wouldn't it? Or perhaps councillors have spotted a flaw in the idea of using volunteers extensively. Either way, I think we should be told.
I think there might be a slight conflict of interest, the local Labour Party Community Organiser applying to be an administrator for the Liberal Democrat group. I would have though anyone with even a passing interest in politics might have realised this.
There's nothing to stop anyone applying for the post I guess then using the money to fund their own community projects and you can't blame the bloke for trying I suppose, but if this is indicative of his grasp of local politics I suspect he might not get the gig.
I didn't apply for it. I simply said that I would have did it for free if asked. It's a blatant waste of taxpayers money, and if elected members (whether Lib Dem or Tory) have to rely on a political advisor in addition to briefings from departments and everything else, we are better off without them.
The most blatant highlighting of this issue was when it was when David Rendel admitted that he does not hold briefings with the finance department. Rumour has it that even I have met with finance more often than David Rendel, maybe this is why Roger Hunneman told me that I didn't know what I was talking about at the NRA meeting in January, and pleaded with the NWN not to report that the council's long term borrowing had risen to £49m. I'd known that since October time, so if the Lib Dems didn't know that by January, what the hell are they doing???
I want a more effective opposition, the Tories want a more effective opposition and the taxpayers want a more effective opposition. The council should axe plans for this position, and I will provide 30 hours a week unpaid to act as a policy unit for all opposition parties. Not just the Lib Dems and Labour, but to any political party that registers an interest with the council to ensure there is a level playing field.
So taxpayers do not want the administration to be held to account??? The taxpayers expect their elected members to be more effective, and members are already paid sufficiently to do this. Why the taxpayer must now foot the bill to pay for another "executive" is beyond me.
So taxpayers do not want the administration to be held to account??? The taxpayers expect their elected members to be more effective, and members are already paid sufficiently to do this. Why the taxpayer must now foot the bill to pay for another "executive" is beyond me.
By all means speak for yourself but I don't think you have any mandate to speak on behalf of taxpayers. If you took any notice at all of what voters thought you'd know that most don't want Newbury Labour to speak on their behalf.
It would appear that User23 and Lovejoy are the only two people who don't want an effective opposition. Any reason why?
Becuase this would mean that they have failed their paymasters by not defelecting criticsm from them. By having an effective opposition this would mean that they may have to operate in the correct manner and have all work put under proper scrutiny unlike at the moment.
By all means speak for yourself but I don't think you have any mandate to speak on behalf of taxpayers. If you took any notice at all of what voters thought you'd know that most don't want Newbury Labour to speak on their behalf.
Indeed he/Labour doesn't have a great deal of support - but it is far more support than the WBC employees like User23 who put themselves and their wishes above those of the electorate and taxpayer.
What seems to me to be a little strange is that the council feel that they should pay somebody from the taxpayers pocket to help the LibDem councillors to do the job that they put themselves forward to do. If the councillors, Lib Dem, Conservative or any other party want a gofor, then let them pay for it out of their allowance. If they don't want to pay someone then elect amongst themselves a councillor with responsibility for searching out the facts. If the running of the council is as transparent as it is claimed, it shouldn't be too difficult.
What seems to me to be a little strange is that the council feel that they should pay somebody from the taxpayers pocket to help the LibDem councillors to do the job that they put themselves forward to do. If the councillors, Lib Dem, Conservative or any other party want a gofor, then let them pay for it out of their allowance. If they don't want to pay someone then elect amongst themselves a councillor with responsibility for searching out the facts. If the running of the council is as transparent as it is claimed, it shouldn't be too difficult.
Spot on. User23 is treating my comments as a job application, I'm simply saying I would have done it for free. The real scandal is that elected members put themselves forward to represent us, get paid quite well for the pleasure yet can't be bothered to attend briefings. If the opposition can't attend the briefings that are available to them, they should allow others with an interest of holding the council to account to attend.
Everyone seems to think that this job is something new. It's not - WBC have employed people to act as party administrators for years, I know the chap who had the job with the Tories when they were in opposition.
It would appear that User23 and Lovejoy are the only two people who don't want an effective opposition. Any reason why?
Wrong again.
I was merely commenting on the local election results we had a few months back. Seems to me the voters in West Berkshire are happy with things the way they are.
Everyone seems to think that this job is something new. It's not
That's not particularly relevant, is it? The coalition - Cameron and Clegg - are ramming down our throats that we're in crisis, that hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs must go, that the future is the Big Society and volunteers. WBC are only a third of the way through their cuts with hundreds more jobs set to go and yet here are the coalition's local representatives appointing someone to do their leg work for them at the taxpayer's expense.
Maybe there's a good case for paying people to do this backroom work at the same time that they're cutting and refusing to fill front line posts. If so, what is it?
I was merely commenting on the local election results we had a few months back. Seems to me the voters in West Berkshire are happy with things the way they are.
Voting for a preference does not prove people are happy.
That's not particularly relevant, is it? The coalition - Cameron and Clegg - are ramming down our throats that we're in crisis, that hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs must go, that the future is the Big Society and volunteers. WBC are only a third of the way through their cuts with hundreds more jobs set to go and yet here are the coalition's local representatives appointing someone to do their leg work for them at the taxpayer's expense.
Maybe there's a good case for paying people to do this backroom work at the same time that they're cutting and refusing to fill front line posts. If so, what is it?
It's not people is it, it's one person for 15 hours a week which works out at just over 1 hour per councillor, per week.
What you suggest, that councillors should be doing more typing and filing themselves is a perfectly valid point of view, but then that's less time spent engaging with the public and listening to their views. If you're happy with that to save just around £1k per councillor a year then so be it.
What you suggest, that councillors should be doing more typing and filing themselves blah blah
You really do seem to have serious difficulty understanding plain English. I suggested that they should attempt to recruit a volunteer to do the job before spending money we don't have.
Having said that, do councillors really employ people to do their typing? Unbelievable in this day and age but I guess it's possible. How are they getting material to their typists, writing in manuscript or using dictaphones? I seriously hope no taxpayer money has been spent giving these people laptops if this is how they work.
What they need is a volunteer who is really committed to the Libdem cause and can see the massive contribution they've made to....ah, I begin to see the problem.
You really do seem to have serious difficulty understanding plain English. I suggested that they should attempt to recruit a volunteer to do the job before spending money we don't have.
Did they not already attempt to recruit a volunteer?
Having said that, do councillors really employ people to do their typing? Unbelievable in this day and age but I guess it's possible. How are they getting material to their typists, writing in manuscript or using dictaphones? I seriously hope no taxpayer money has been spent giving these people laptops if this is how they work.
Now you're just being silly and grasping at straws. Don't people of a sufficiently senior level in most organisations have a PA?
Don't people of a sufficiently senior level in most organisations have a PA?
PAs are very rare these days. I seriously doubt a councilor would have one.
But getting back to the point. The post is clearly a strategic/political/research type post. As Noobree says, a perfect job for an intern or LibDem nut.
Is there a legal requirement that all local parties should have one? Provided by the LA?
I imagine your average intern or Garvie type wouldn't be up to the other part of the role of "providing a wide range of high level strategic support".
Why would any one apply for this position? If they were capable of "providing a wide range of high level strategic support" they would obviously be far too qualified to be working for the Lib Liars or WBC. Perhaps if they were to undergo a full frontal lobotomy first?
I imagine your average intern or Garvie type wouldn't be up to the other part of the role of "providing a wide range of high level strategic support".[/quote
Great, you found nine vacancies. Try nationwide you might find more. Anyway, how many PAs are there in west Berks council?
I imagine your average intern or Garvie type wouldn't be up to the other part of the role of "providing a wide range of high level strategic support".
So, to be clear, the council is attempting to recruit someone who it will pay to do typing, filing and provide high level strategic support. Although it is actively recruiting volunteers to do work which was formerly paid in other parts of the council, for some undetermined reason it isn't going to attempt to do that in this case.
My argument was that, if they're serious about The Big Society and saving money, they should attempt to recruit volunteers wherever possible. Hardly a controversial point if you are believers in Dave and Nick.
This post seems ideally suited to a volunteer and as I mentioned previously (User has an extremely short memory - I'm beginning to worry about him) there are brigades of ideally qualified people taking voluntary redundancy, many of whom have distinctly Libdem leanings, who would be only too happy to help with this type of work. Why not try to recruit a volunteer first before going down the paid-with-money-we-don't-have route? Hmm?
User hasn't advanced a single sensible objection to this point. He's an interesting phenomenon - like an incompetent spin doctor from a third rate political sitcom. Does anyone know whether he does this on a freelance basis or is it part of his job description? I know that, understandably, councillors do get really upset about some of the discussions which take place here. But User seems to have a loyalty to the WBC cause which goes beyond common sense and I can't imagine that even our dimmest local councillors would think he's helping to make them look like a competent, well run organisation. What's the story here?
So, to be clear, the council is attempting to recruit someone who it will pay to do typing, filing and provide high level strategic support. Although it is actively recruiting volunteers to do work which was formerly paid in other parts of the council, for some undetermined reason it isn't going to attempt to do that in this case.
Did they not attempt to recruit a suitable volunteer for the position?
Did they not attempt to recruit a suitable volunteer for the position?
LOL!
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
You didn't answer the question the first time I asked it and you haven't here. Your blustering seems to be made on the premise that they didn't attempt to recruit a suitable volunteer for the position. I'm simply asking, did they not?
You didn't answer the question the first time I asked it and you haven't here. Your blustering seems to be made on the premise that they didn't attempt to recruit a suitable volunteer for the position. I'm simply asking, did they not?
You seem to have all the answers, well, and I'm asking you, did they ?
Oh dear. Admit it, User, you're completely incapable of defeating my faultless logic and I can see why that upsets you. It was me who asked why they hadn't recruited a volunteer for this post in the first place. If they attempted and failed, whoever is responsible is clearly incompetent. If they didn't, ditto. Would you like me to draw you a picture?
Now, calm down have a nice cup of tea and take it easy over the weekend. You're getting yourself over excited. Hopefully the council members we've put in charge of overseeing all this will take up my point. You don't need to worry yourself about it any more.
Oh dear. Admit it, User, you're completely incapable of defeating my faultless logic and I can see why that upsets you. It was me who asked why they hadn't recruited a volunteer for this post in the first place. If they attempted and failed, whoever is responsible is clearly incompetent. If they didn't, ditto. Would you like me to draw you a picture?
Now, calm down have a nice cup of tea and take it easy over the weekend. You're getting yourself over excited. Hopefully the council members we've put in charge of overseeing all this will take up my point. You don't need to worry yourself about it any more.
So to summarise, you don't know whether they tried to recruit someone to do the job for free but your entire argument is based on the premise that they didn't.
You say that if they had attempted and failed then it's clearly the recruiter's fault there was no one up to the task willing to do it for gratis and not the fact that it's fairly unlikely someone would do a £30k job for nothing.
Great, absolutely barmy stuff, you're clearly on the wind up. Well done you had me going for a bit.
your entire argument is based on the premise that they didn't
You really do have a problem with this, don't you? I have endless patience: show me the part where you think my 'entire premise' is and I'll try to explain where you're getting it wrong.
You really do have a problem with this, don't you? I have endless patience: show me the part where you think my 'entire premise' is and I'll try to explain where you're getting it wrong.
Come on, the joke's over now.
The line "they attempted and failed, whoever is responsible is clearly incompetent" regarding being unable to recruit someone (to a job that normally pays up to £36k pro rata a year) to do it for free was the give away.
You had me going for a while, but don't milk it now.
As I say I have endless patience and am very happy to take you through my reasoning very slowly.
First, let's start with the only fact available to the general public, the advertisement on your excellent website .. but... what's this!..I see the vacancy closed on 16th June even though admin only informed us about it on 21st June! Let's find out whether it was advertised for volunteers. Hang on there User, you keep sipping your tea and I'll be back with you in a moment. There's more to this than meets the eye.
Nope. I've searched high and low (on bits of the web you probably don't even know exist, User), and I can't find any evidence at all that this post was advertised to volunteers. Very happy to see evidence to the contrary. Over to you me old mate.
When we've established whether or not any attempt was made to recruit volunteers for this post I'll explain the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning to you and we'll carry on from there. Pay attention - you could learn a lot!
So to summarise, you don't know whether they tried to recruit someone to do the job for free but your entire argument is based on the premise that they didn't.
No User you idiot our point is we don't expect to fund this position which is only required for party political purposes.
[There will now be a short pause while User asks his masters what he should say next. Ad hominems will resume after the break. Meanwhile, it's nice to see that this has struck a nerve, isn't it? Talk amongst yourselves - normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.]
Of course he understands, that's not the point. So far as we can tell from the available information, User is a WBC employee. Some claim to know exactly who he is, but that's not relevant and it's quite possible that a number of people could be posting under the same user name.
It seems very likely, based on the available evidence, that he/they has been instructed by Cartergrad High Command to be a pain in the nether regions of this forum. The High Command hate the forum and with good reason, but they know much better than to respond openly themselves. Councillors have attempted to do that in the past and only drew oppropbrium.
I think we all have to admit that User does a fantastic job of being a pain in the arse. He must far exceed his master's expectations and it can only be a matter of time before he's pushed further up the greasy pole. (With apologies to anyone who finds the mention of greasy poles and arses in the same post distasteful at this time of the day).
PS User makes frequent, albeit clumsy, attempts to use 'staw man' arguments. He deliberately misrepresents what a poster has said and then attacks the misrepresentation. It's his favourite means of getting up the forum's arse.
The important thing to remember is that part of the point of him posting here is to ensure we attack him rather than criticise the council. His job is to draw flak.
We still don't know why no successful attempt was made to fill this job with a volunteer and it seems breathtakingly hypocritical and arrogant of the coalition to spend money on a backroom post like this while so many front line posts are being axed or (if the council get their way) filled by volunteers.
PS User makes frequent, albeit clumsy, attempts to use 'staw man' arguments. He deliberately misrepresents what a poster has said and then attacks the misrepresentation. It's his favourite means of getting up the forum's arse.
The important thing to remember is that part of the point of him posting here is to ensure we attack him rather than criticise the council. His job is to draw flak.
We still don't know why no successful attempt was made to fill this job with a volunteer and it seems breathtakingly arrogant of the coalition to spend money on a backroom post like this while so many front line posts are being axed or (if the council get their way) filled by volunteers.
You must also take into account: Who would volunteer for this position. Who in their right mind would admit working for the Lib Liars after this fiasco of the coalition?
Bit like admitting it was your dog droppings that are on the boot of your neighbour really?
Point taken Cognosco, but perhaps you're being a little harsh. After it's not as if their support has completely disappeared: 7% of voters still claim to support them. I admit that's close to completely disappearing.
Anyway, let's see if User gets back to us on this one. If he's got half a brain he'll know that there's one way of dealing with criticism of this appointment really effectively and it doesn't involve attacking previous posters or setting up straw men.
Are you telling us all WBC is staffed by volunteers then?
You have obviously not seen the salaries some of them are paid then? Volunteers would have more enthusiasm for ensuring the council was run with more openess and transparency; probably less gaffs as well truth to tell?
The problem with volunteer effort, is that it can lack discipline, and therefore: reliability.
There are certainly swings and roundabouts. Paid staff can also be pretty unreliable. They get sick, go on holiday and training courses and often pointless conferences and you have to keep paying them even when they don't show up. And have you ever tried sacking anyone? Volunteers often do a superb job and many parts of council provision have depended on them for years: I'm thinking of youth services, for example, where very high standards of reliability and discipline are required (who now, of course, have to depend on volunteers even more).
You have to admit, Greenham, that this job would be absolutely ideal for a small team or two or three committed Libdem volunteers. I can find no evidence that any attempt was made to find any.
Presumably it was advertised on the WBC website although based on this http://goo.gl/QtE8D it seems not. Is that right, User? Don't get over excited - I'm only asking the question and I'm sure it was.
All that is true, but fixed term contracts could deal with some professional performance issues. Being professional means also that it could open the position up to more (less well-off) people. Whatever the method, it would be good to see an effective opposition. I don't believe we have that at the moment.
The problem with volunteer effort, is that it can lack discipline, and therefore: reliability.
That's a good point. Many volunteers hold positions they're not very good at. And they're beyond reproach because their defence is usually "I'm doing my best... I did as much as I could....
This may be connected to the fact it's quite easy to set up and get funding for your charity around here.
What I would suggest is an apointed policy panel, where those interested in local politics can have briefings with departments and access to information. This information could then be passed to interested parties who register with the council. This ensures that if the Lib Dems don't want to hold briefings and do the leg work, other parties can still effectively challenge the Tories.
What I would suggest is an apointed policy panel, where those interested in local politics can have briefings with departments and access to information. This information could then be passed to interested parties who register with the council. This ensures that if the Lib Dems don't want to hold briefings and do the leg work, other parties can still effectively challenge the Tories.
Trouble with the 'Parties' tag is that anygroup of people could set themselves up as a party and the whole thing could be very cumbersome. There must at some time be confidential briefings, when negotiating contracts for instance where there would be a 'need to know'. If we are going down the party line, there are only two parties, and the other parties who have no elected councillors do not really have a right to know anything as they do not hold a remit from the populace. If they felt they were entitled to know what WBC are spending our money on then the electorate would have voted them into the council. Whilst I believe that the council should be reasonably transparent it must be a real pain in the butt having local wannabies forever asking them to produce statistics. We should be able to rely upon the opposition to keep the council on an even keel. This however is patently not possible when the opposition councillor for finance is critical because the ruling lot have underspent by a millionish. Lord knows what capital the Libdems might have made if they had overspent by that amount. Personally, I'm fed up with the whole of local government, they are elected to run the council but have no ability to so do. I wonder sometimes what qualification the various councillors actually have. Any degrees amongst the lot of them in finance, town planning, architecture, highways, health and safety etc. Thought not.
Still no response on the main point here: why are they filling back office posts like this with paid employees without properly exploring whether there are volunteers who would do the job? Particularly when Cameron/Clegg are pushing the need for volunteers to take on front line jobs if we're to keep services running. Problem is that it seems that the conservatives already have a paid gofer/strategic policy analyst of their very own so they aren't going to take the libdems to task. We need to ensure that this isn't buried.
Still no response on the main point here: why are they filling back office posts like this with paid employees without properly exploring whether there are volunteers who would do the job? Particularly when Cameron/Clegg are pushing the need for volunteers to take on front line jobs if we're to keep services running. Problem is that it seems that the conservatives already have a paid gofer/strategic policy analyst of their very own so they aren't going to take the libdems to task. We need to ensure that this isn't buried.
Still no response on the main point here: why are they filling back office posts like this with paid employees without properly exploring whether there are volunteers who would do the job? Particularly when Cameron/Clegg are pushing the need for volunteers to take on front line jobs if we're to keep services running. Problem is that it seems that the conservatives already have a paid gofer/strategic policy analyst of their very own so they aren't going to take the libdems to task. We need to ensure that this isn't buried.
I am wondering whether WBC has a legal obligation to provide this person. It seems highly odd that we have to pay for a political post, but in the context of the currently dormant debate about the public financing political parties, perhaps not so odd. In any case, WBC does seem to be struggling to get rid of staff, preferring to cut services instead. Has anybody read The Scheme for Full Employment by Magnus Mills? I reckon Nick Carter has.
I don't think I have a problem with the idea that, in an ideal world (ie one in which the country isn't broke) councillors might benefit from some paid-for assistance.
However given that No 10 (current occupants D Cameron and N Clegg) are urging volunteers to take over the running of local services, and that we are broke, isn't it deeply hypocritical not to look for volunteers to do back office work ? In fact, given that politicians keep saying they'll protect front line services, shouldn't they look for volunteers to do back office work BEFORE they sack front line staff? Particularly, as I pointed out before, given the ready availability of so many highly qualified potential volunteers.
Even if there is a legal requirement to provide paid help to councillors there's no reason why local politicians shouldn't set an example here. Is there, local politicians?
I wonder what happened to User. He has either gone on holiday or his controller in Cartergrad's equivalent of the KGB decided he failed in his mission to disrupt the forum and he's currently banged up in an interrogation cell, deep below Market Street. We can only hope.
I reckon they have cut their losses on this thread, don't want to answer the questions so will just ignore it and hope it goes away!!!
Funnily enough that was one of the two ways of dealing with my posts that I was going to recommend to User had he not been sent to WBC's equivalent of the Lubyanka. The other way I thought they should respond would have been better, but either approach improved on what he actually did.
Everyone seems to think that this job is something new. It's not - WBC have employed people to act as party administrators for years, I know the chap who had the job with the Tories when they were in opposition.
That chap would be me! I'm not generally called a chap so must be Steve who took over from me...
Richard Garvie would not want this job paid or unpaid as it's 'politically restricted'.
Following that he seems to have spent a proportion of Friday night talking to himself on the Internet...
Eh? Oh I see. No, I just type a lot faster than you do: didn't take long. And this thread has had 1500 views. Nothing like the over 20,000 (!) for the skateboard park thread but it's more than just you, Richard and me.
Look, User, I know you mean well but when you attack a person rather than the point they're making people tend to assume that you're not very confident about the strength of your arguments.
My original point was that, in these straightened times, this post would be ideally suited to one or more volunteers and that, given our local politicians will be expecting front line staff to take a hit in the name of reducing the deficit, they should have used unpaid staff for this post.
You're welcome to disagree but so far that's all you have done. You haven't advanced any arguments. Suggesting that I 'bluster' and am a 'wind up merchant' isnt' the same as advancing a coherent argument. Do you see?
Now, I think it's probably the case that you're getting grumpy about this because you don't have any arguments. That's fair enough, but don't shoot yourself in the foot by using ad hominem attacks.
Seems to be" Laughing out Loud". And being an old grump would never dream of doing so. Don't quote me, have yet to use smilies... I guess somethings help when you are not exactly agreeing or disagreeing. Just being a pain.http://www.newbury.net/blahdocs/Smilies/cool.png
Logged
Male
