Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
Do me a favour. All the news 'over five years' (aka the next government) Ah retirement you mean ? 
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Councils to cut jobs ?
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
thedonkeycentrehalf
Moved back to wear the gloves (again)
- Jul 7, 2003
- 9,122
How's this one from not too far down the road from you BBC News - Birmingham City councillors agree job-cuts budget
Local government always gets cut first. Lots of 'normal' people will be losing their jobs, just like in the private sector. All will have bills to pay and many families to feed and clothe. Whatever people think about council workers, it's still a job and most people would rather have a have a job than not.
Local government always gets cut first. Lots of 'normal' people will be losing their jobs, just like in the private sector. All will have bills to pay and many families to feed and clothe. Whatever people think about council workers, it's still a job and most people would rather have a have a job than not.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,822
this is largely because the past ten years has seen councils and government departments fill up with administrators and project managers. the falsehood of low employment will start to show. Its a shame for those involved of course, but didnt they wonder who had been doing those jobs before?
Uncle C
Well-known member
The gravy train is about to hit the buffers.
brakespear
Doctor Worm
severnside gull
Well-known member
Bet the cost cutting won't extend to councillors' salaries and expenses (except for perhaps cutting out the choccy biccies at meetings)
West Hoathly Seagull
Honorary Ruffian
Severnside gull, as you say. West Sussex County Council is cutting £2 million from its Youth Service, but councillors' allowances are going up. How they can justify that I do not know.
withdeanwombat
Well-known member
Obviously councillors have a difficult executive role,whilst youth workers just play football with da yoof,and run discos.
severnside gull
Well-known member
these wannabe politicians have learned at the feet of (their) masters.........
.........in the House of Commons/House of Lords.
Didn't take a lot of predicting did it
Many many years ago when I began working in local government, councillors recieved only expenses and minor attendance allowances for actually being present at formal meetings of the council and its committees. Even then a significant minority were frankly corrupt and the amounts claimed by most were, in my view at the time, questionable (although close scrutiny was actively discouraged by senior staff who possibly knew better than to draw attention to their own very well remunerated positions and perks). It is just one example echoed in different spheres of local and national government since and in truth I cannot even say that I have become disillusioned with politics and politicians - I have seen the abuses at close quarters and been inured to them over a great number of years
Last edited:
Alfred the greatx
Cake anyone, bit overdone
- Jun 15, 2008
- 143
I accept the critism that councilors get and many deserve it. Please remember that it took a long and hard fight to get allowances and expenses for elected representatives. The old school didnt want councilors to get anything so the job was restricted to a tiny minority of wealthy people and a no go area for working class representatives.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
How much do councillors get paid?
Figures for 2008/09 -
Just under £215 a week at Brighton & Hove City Council
Just under £210 a week at West Sussex County Council
Just under £205 a week at East Sussex County Council
Just under £57 a week at Lewes District Council.
Would you do the job for that?
severnside gull
Well-known member
The question..........................WHAT JOB?
They are elected officials whose function is to oversee the actions and to give policy direction to paid employees who have the skills and knowledge required to undertake the necessary tasks. For a great many years this was undertaken by councillors attending meetings on a cyclical basis informed by paid clerks and rewarded with out of pocket expenses. The great majority were not rich but were often employed full time during the day and attended meetings in the evening. Some were retired and used the experience they had gained through their years of employment. Very few indeed were "monied". It was not the electorate that dictated that this was not practical and adequate - it was the same elected councillors who decided that they could turn their primarily voluntary role into a lucrative career. They created a well paid job for themselves and each is now supported by an extended secretariat for which the electorate pays. Are they doing a better job for being full time paid employees? Arguably not. Indeed many might say, demonstrably not. Was the honorary elected official system failing. Arguably not - it was only the elected who determined the need to remunerate themselves and the level of that remuneration has, since its inception, escalated above inflation. Who votes the salaries? The councillors. Who determines expenses? The councillors.
Why oh why are we surprised that levels of engagement by the electorate have diminished to the level that participation is at record low levels and barely comes within the parameters of democratic representation.
Would I do the job for that salary?
I am a school governor, a member of the board of a local mental health trust and an FE College Chairman. I recieve no payment for any of those roles. I am not independently wealthy. I have my pension and a carers allowance. Pay me £200 and I'd bite your hand off but it ain't going to happen because there are no public funds available in these sectors to pay for it - the money goes on services instead.
They are elected officials whose function is to oversee the actions and to give policy direction to paid employees who have the skills and knowledge required to undertake the necessary tasks. For a great many years this was undertaken by councillors attending meetings on a cyclical basis informed by paid clerks and rewarded with out of pocket expenses. The great majority were not rich but were often employed full time during the day and attended meetings in the evening. Some were retired and used the experience they had gained through their years of employment. Very few indeed were "monied". It was not the electorate that dictated that this was not practical and adequate - it was the same elected councillors who decided that they could turn their primarily voluntary role into a lucrative career. They created a well paid job for themselves and each is now supported by an extended secretariat for which the electorate pays. Are they doing a better job for being full time paid employees? Arguably not. Indeed many might say, demonstrably not. Was the honorary elected official system failing. Arguably not - it was only the elected who determined the need to remunerate themselves and the level of that remuneration has, since its inception, escalated above inflation. Who votes the salaries? The councillors. Who determines expenses? The councillors.
Why oh why are we surprised that levels of engagement by the electorate have diminished to the level that participation is at record low levels and barely comes within the parameters of democratic representation.
Would I do the job for that salary?
I am a school governor, a member of the board of a local mental health trust and an FE College Chairman. I recieve no payment for any of those roles. I am not independently wealthy. I have my pension and a carers allowance. Pay me £200 and I'd bite your hand off but it ain't going to happen because there are no public funds available in these sectors to pay for it - the money goes on services instead.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
As a former paid officer of a local authority, with sufficient seniority to attend council decision making meetings (and write reports advising councillors on policy issues and appropriate decisions that they might make), my take on what has happened since the system of allowances was introduced is that, these days, senior councillors are much more personally involved in the decision-making and policy-making processes than they used to be.
In the old days, before allowances, the "voluntary" councillors were much more likely to do what they were told by the officers - who often ran the local authority with very little political input into the process.
I won't comment on what was the most effective system. What I would suggest, though, is that the new system is much more accountable to the voters. More controversial, certainly, since party politicians have more input. But, arguably, more democratic.
And the problem with political democracy is that substantial numbers of voters will want to disagree with the decisions that their elected representatives make.
In the old days, before allowances, the "voluntary" councillors were much more likely to do what they were told by the officers - who often ran the local authority with very little political input into the process.
I won't comment on what was the most effective system. What I would suggest, though, is that the new system is much more accountable to the voters. More controversial, certainly, since party politicians have more input. But, arguably, more democratic.
And the problem with political democracy is that substantial numbers of voters will want to disagree with the decisions that their elected representatives make.
Well, you know what Brecht said about that: it's time to dissolve the electorate and choose another.
Back to the topic, I'm struck by how rapidly council officials salaries have risen. B&H Council revealed the other day that seven members of the council staff earn six-figure salaries. Even allowing for inflation, I'm sure that wasn't the case 30 years ago - perhaps his Lordship could give an indication as to whether my perception is accurate or not.
Councils have contracted out many of the lower paid jobs in the last 20yrs or so, hence, if services are reduced it will not be their own employees who suffer most. Refuse collections reduced less dustmen needed, leisure services reduced less lifeguards needed, school cleaning reduced less cleaners needed. These are the low paid workers who will suffer.
severnside gull
Well-known member
Lord Bracknell
On fire
That's certainly true.
It's reckoned to be "the market rate" for top managers. Which - with so much of local government services now contracted out to the private sector (not just manual workers' jobs) - may well be the case.
Many of the new breed of Council Chief Officers are recruited - on short-term contracts - from the well-paid private sector. The old lot started at the bottom of the local government ladder and worked their way up.
Tight shorts
Active member
I wish. Those days are long gone.