Labour councillors seek higher pay, more perks and better pensions

Just received this from CCHQ:

"A major report, commissioned by the Government, overseen by Labour supporters and to be handed to Local Government Minister Hazel Blears on Monday, is to recommend massive payments to councillors. Council tax bills will be hiked to help the cash-strapped Labour Party and unemployed Labour cronies.

In a move that will outrage local taxpayers as they face council tax bills edging towards £1,400 on Band D bills from April, the Labour-dominated ‘Councillors Commission’ is to recommend shocking cash handouts for councillors across the board. The plans also include a systematic dismantling of rules introduced in the 1980s to protect local taxpayers from ‘loony left’ councils and ‘jobs for the boys’ corruption:

• Higher salaries for all councillors is demanded – including parish councillors. Under rules passed by the Labour Party in 2006, all Labour councillors must now make direct debit payments from councillor pay packets to Labour Party funds; the higher the salary, the more money for Labour.
• Golden goodbyes - cash handouts will be given to those “who lose office through the action of the electorate”. Labour’s unpopularity in the polls will thus be rewarded with state cash.
• State funding for local political parties, tied to meeting state diversity and equality targets. Term limits will also push out popular councillors because they are too ‘old’.
• Pensions for all councillors, whilst ordinary pensioners struggle to pay their bills. A press release suggesting pensions for councillors was the ‘bad news’ that disgraced Labour spin doctor, Jo Moore, infamously ‘buried’ following the 9/11 terrorist atrocity.
• Propaganda on the rates – via a new ‘Communications Allowance’ for councillors like MPs. Restrictions on political propaganda advertising by local authorities will also be torn up. Only last week, the Taxpayers’ Alliance exposed how the publicity bill has already soared to £450 million a year.
• State benefits and dole - letting councillors keep their town hall salaries and still claim benefits, giving a boost to Labour councillors who are unable or unwilling to find a job.
• Jobs for the boys - weakening controls on council officers who are also councillors. Such rules were designed to prevent municipal corruption and local civil servants becoming politicised.
• Abolishing by-elections, because local democracy is too inconvenient for the electorally-challenged Labour Party.
• Three jobs: Requirements to turn up to meetings to vote will be scrapped, but councillors will still be paid in full. This will make it easier for Labour councillors to hold down a day job and a night job at the same time as being a councillor.

Eric Pickles MP, Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government, said:

“Councillors have a valued role to play in holding town halls to account, and making sure that councils deliver good quality, responsive frontline services. But it is vital that councillors are fundamentally arms-length volunteers - and do not become the bankrolled staff of the town hall dependant on the municipal pay packet.  At a time when council tax bills will hit almost £1,400 this April, local residents will be outraged at the prospect of Labour politicians wanting to fleece them even more to bankroll the morally and financially bankrupt Labour Party.  These policies are all about more cash being stuffed in the pockets of Labour, jobs for the boys and back-door state funding. Conservatives will fight these plans and stand up for the interests of the local taxpayer.”

Donal Blaney has already blasted the recommendations of the Councillors' Commission: "The suggestion that councillors should get more perks, benefit from golden goodbyes, fritter away communications allowances and not even have to turn up to council meetings sums up the conceited attitude of the Labour government towards our democratic system."

Comments

[jaymason44]

All the labour ones are going to be out of a job at the next round of local elections, it's theIr last chance to rip off your average, hard working, council tax paying homeowner. Fortunately we now have a Conservative council and after the next general election should get rid of our incumbent party appartchik Mr Levitt and get a half decent Conservative M.P

[Malcolm Dunn]

Let's hope all Conservatives oppose this. I have my doubts I'm afraid.
On the other hand my faith in humanity was restored somewhat when I visited my local parish council. The Parish councillors were offered an allowance to continue doing their job. Every one of them turned it down which I thought was admirable.

[top of the shot]

While I do not agree with Labour's proposals, it is about time that Parish Councillors, school governors and those non councillors who sit on outside bodies representing councillors, should be entitled to at least claim travel expenses. While not every school governor would not wish to claim, there is not reason why governors or parish counicillors should be "out of pocket".

[RightSider]

Is anybody surprised by this? I know I'm not.

[Deborah]

" But it is vital that councillors are fundamentally arms-length volunteers - and do not become the bankrolled staff of the town hall dependant on the municipal pay packet."

I agree entirely - but unfortunately it is already the case in my local Conservative controlled council.

[Richard]

Are we to take this report seriously or is it just a massive wind up? The proposals as outlined in today's papers seem to be contrary to all sensible principles. In particular, automatic co-option of councillors rather than a by-election is undemocratic. Furthermore parish councillors can already claim some allowances and travel expenses for journeys outside their parish but to load further administrative costs onto the precept is the last thing that this tier of government needs.

[Umbrella man]

(1) If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

(2) Local councillors are of pretty low quality in most places today.

(3) The above proposals may not be the answer but something needs to be done to increase the quality of councillors.

[greg]

(1) If you pay peanuts you get monkeys

Why is it always assumed that more money is the way to attract better councillors? The amount of time that the best have to spend on council business would require enormous salaries if that was the case.

The way to get better councillors is to give them stronger and more flexible powers, giving councillors the feeling that it is a job worth doing, and a real incentive for the electorate to remove those who don't do a good job.

[Graham Smith]

As one who pressed Sleaford Town Council to introduce personal allowances, I disagree with those who oppose allowances for Parish/Town Councillors*.

Being able to claim an allowance enables shift workers at local poultry and meat packing plants to stand for election. People whose annual earnings fall short of £15,000 would otherwise be unwilling to lose a whole day's pay in order to attend the parish council.

Being able to claim an allowance enables single parents to stand for election. Babysitters and taxis are otherwise unaffordable for families with an annual income of less than £20,000.

The receipt of allowances is not compulsory. After all, those people who can afford to take the equivilant of a day's unpaid leave more than once a month to attend parish councils and those who do not need to choose between feeding their families and paying for a babysitter need not claim their allowance.

* The Independent Panel made the following recommendations to Sleaford Town Council for the payment of Members allowances-

a. That a Parish Basic Allowance be paid to members equivalent to 10% of District Council Basic Allowance (i.e. the sum of £408 per year, rounded up).
b. That there should not be any additional allowance for the Chairman.
c. That travel and subsistence allowance should be paid at the same rate as that recommended for District Councillors and in respect of the same duties as pertains for District Councillors.

[Sepoy Agent]

top of the shot at 4.19

School governors have been able to claim travel and subsistence allowances for many years. The governing body has to agree a scheme for payment of expenses. The fact that most governors don't claim expenses is because they don't want to take money away from the school's budget.

[Umbrella man]

greg: Could it be that councillors don't just needs more powers (although you're right that they do) but that they also deserve more money? A proper wage for a proper job?

[Donal Blaney]

Graham: one hopes you also cut the number of council staff, therefore, if you were all doing that much more work for the council. The trade-off is surely that if councillors become increasingly full-time you don't need as many council employees.

[Peter Coe]

For possibly the first time in my life, I agree with something Donal Blaney says - in respect of his above comment at 6.04pm.

The "trade off" is absolutely key here - the reform of the political management of local authorities in the late 1990s was not coupled with a similar reform of the bureaucratic management of the councils; so a lot of the attacks Donal and his colleagues made on the change in system had more clout (even though they were misguided - because political reform was long overdue) because "executive councillors" had, in practice, little more executive power than previously committee chairs had.

I would point out that while this site obviously has a bias there are plenty of dole-bludging, benefits-cheating, absentee Tory (and Lib Dem councillors): indeed, one of Donal's former Tory comrades in Hammersmith & Fulham, mysteriously vanished after it emerged that he'd been falsely claiming housing benefits.

And in Wandsworth a Tory Roehampton councillor has just been exposed by the local newspaper as living in Bournemouth, barely attends any meetings, never does any casework.

I believe all idle, useless and corrupt councillors should be kicked out without recompense - not just Labour ones!

[Jack Chapman]

The Councillors Commission report misses the whole point of local democracy. Their proposals would clearly change the whole culture of local politics where councillors voluntarily serve their communities. The councillor population comes from many walks of life and experience. These proposals would change the nature of local councillors from serving their communities to serving their own careers.

[Matt Wright]

Astonishing report that focuses on the wrong issues. As a councillor I don't want more income (I've never claimed a penny in expenses) I want to see the council have real power and funds to serve the community. Our grant from Govt keeps getting cut while money is frittered away on central Govt bureaucracy. No wonder people are stopping voting.

[Donal Blaney]

Hi Peter: that's news to me that one of my former colleagues was fiddling the system! Who was it? (Presumably they were convicted so you can say who it was)

[greg]

Jack 7:30 - that is a brilliant point. Once councillors get to the stage where they are actually earning a living wage (as opposed to a level of reasonable recompense that doesn't actively exclude people less fortunate or well off from serving) then they inevitably be serving two masters, their local communities AND their own careers, even more, their own livelihoods. And they would be only human if the decisions they took began increasingly to trend towards favouring the latter.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Again, totally disagree with Umbrella Man. If a councillor is doing this job for money ,he or she is it in for the wrong reasons. The biggest difficulty for people who wish to apply is time but apart from introducing the beurocracy that afflicts councils I really don't see what can be done about it.
I don't find most councillors to 'low quality' most that I've met of all parties have a deep sense of public service. These proposals will ruin this.

[John Moss]

Councils need more power and more money, but it should come from slashing the quangoes like Regional Assemblies, Development Agencies, Learning and Skills Councils, Housing Corp, EP, etc etc.

Give that funding to Councils and set a target for them to raise 50% of what they spend from local charges, rates and taxes by 2020 - with concomitant reductions in national taxation. Tax competition will see innovation and experimentation - the best schemes will succeed the worst will fail, along with their councils.

Yes, local taxes will rise, but so will turnout at elections. Bad councils will be kicked out and good ones returned.

All Conservative of course!

[Peter Coe]

Donal - not sure he was ever caught - he literally vanished...although a canoe was never found!

He was a Town ward councillor. Ask Stephen Greenhalgh - he was elected in the by-election caused by this.

To be fair, I concede that was before your time on the council - so not strictly a colleague of yours.

Councils need more power and more money, but it should come from slashing the quangoes like Regional Assemblies, Development Agencies, Learning and Skills Councils, Housing Corp, EP, etc etc.
There would be scope for Local Authorities to be allowed to charge for many services such as library services, museums, and for education to be transferred out of Local Authority control and funded through fees, waste disposal services could be billed for directly and run by charities limited by guarantee totally independent of Local Government.

There need to be fewer politicians, moving towards devolved parliaments in England - Cornwall, Yorkshire, Wessex, Mercia, Norfolk etc.... The devolved parliaments could then have tax varying and extra revenue raising powers, and have responsibility for deciding the structure of Local Government in their area, and whether councillors receive any allowances or not. What they decide to have they then have to pay for - this might encourage a more efficient cheaper system.

>>>>Councils need more power and more money, but it should come from slashing the quangoes like Regional Assemblies, Development Agencies, Learning and Skills Councils, Housing Corp, EP, etc etc.<<<<
That bit was mean't to be in italics.

I think the Housing Corporation should be retained, but I think Local Authority involvement in housing should be finally ended, all Local Authority housing should be transferred either to development companies for re-development, or to Housing Associations, or Private Tenants.

I think the Social Exclusion Unit should be scrapped and things such as the Royal Opera House, Barbican, government stake in Mersey Harbour & Docks Company, Port of London Authority, London Bridge, Local Authority owned airports, Parcelforce, Covent Garden Market Authority and Tate Modern all privatised.

[Billy Bob]

What a crock and the biggest dose of hypocracy I've ever seen. Yes the Cllrs Commission report has some barmy recommendations, but when is the Party going to grow up, show itself as a credible governing party and stop going for Daliy Mail headlines! People are turned off from politics because of the petty political slagging matches. I see our MPs are slating the communications allowance, increased allowances, pensions and golden goodbyes. Oh yes.....all those things that MPs currently get and I haven't seen them opposing these schemes when it affects them or even if they do speak out they all claim it! The old saying "People in glass houses"....anyone??

[deborah]

In my experience, large allowances (ie significantly more than out of pocket expenses) encourage people to stand as Councillors for entirely the wrong reasons. Once elected, members do as they are told because the money is important to them.

The public trust the parties to field good candidates, but at local level a few select people in the party choose the candidates - and they choose those who will do as they're told.

Sitting Councillors are hard to dislodge in safe Tory constituencies. Even if they do little or no work for their residents, provided they do not "rock the boat" for the party leadership, they can occupy their seat for as long as they want.

The result is a whole swathe of dead wood who don't read their papers, rarely turn up to meetings and never disagree with the Executive - even when poor decisions affect their own wards.

Meanwhile the Executive safeguard their own allowances by adopting all sorts of government initiatives to keep the officers happy.

We need councillors who represent their residents. Large allowances create a conflict of interests ..... just look at MPs.

[NigelC]

If you want to see how much councillors already receive go to
http://www.isitfair.co.uk/
and read "What your councillors cost you".
Even small district councils are alreday dishing out hundreds of thousands of pounds in allowances to members.

[Matt Wright]

Deborah, I think as in most things its about a balance. Allowances are about right for county councillors at present. The increases suggested in the report are not necessary. Given the level of council work nowadays and the need to permit a wider spectrum of people to stand, some form of reasonable allowance is correct. We don't just want retired well off people. I'm not sure expenses as well are necessary unless its some vital role thats a long way from the county or something. On the issue of doing as you are told etc I've just never found this. I've never had pressure put on me to do as I'm told and I've not noticed it in neighbouring LA Cons groups either. We very, very rarely use the whip. Most of the time we genuinely agree on the approach and those times that we don't are accommodated by revising the approach or allowing those who wish to to vote as per their conscience. I appreciate it may be the case elsewhere but I've just not encountered it.

[deborah]

Matt,
I agree that everything is about balance but I cannot agree with your preference for allowances over expenses. Allowances may be bureaucratically simpler but they get paid regardless of effort - at least expenses require attendance!
Regrettably I've also found that allowances don't seem to encourage varied less-well-off candidates as you suggest - but they do provide a handy supplement for those retired well-off pensioners you mention.
"Allowances are about right for county councillors at present" seems rather a sweeping statement. There is great disparity between different authorities - particularly in relation to the "special responsibility allowances" which are based on patronage.

However, your approach to policy-making sounds idyllic - I wish it operated here. If you've never encountered pressure to toe the line then I envy you.

[George Hinton]

The proposals are a frightening invasion of the local purview by "big politics". What we are seeing is the extension of the view, that politics, in all areas, is part of a business area with a career progression, that should reward its apparatchiks and place-people. The fact that the tax-payer will have to pick up the bill is seen as necessary, in the drive towards becoming a self-perpetuating administration, that will ultimately become a de-facto dictatorship, a Quisling organisation under the control of Brussels.
On a more serious note, these proposals need to be widely disseminated amongst the electorate, so that they can see for themselves the next raid on their wallets and know where their best interests are represented.

[Council Officer]

The Conservative Party must resist this attempt to increase allowances. This will impose yet more burden on the charge-payer. Too many elderly Conservative councillors have forgotten what it means to be a Conservative (ie minimal rates, minimal bureaucracy and close touch with the electorate) They see themselves as there to defend the officers rather than hold them to account. I have also noticed that the younger self-proclaimed "professional" types recently elected are far too cosy with the senior officers and far too ready to collaborate with the waste and empire-building which masquerades as "modernisation". We hear far too much about "modernisation" rather than improvement and whenever I hear the expression "the 21st century" I know I'm about to endure a load of pompous, pretentious, patronising, unproductive, job-justifying drivel. Get the members out on the patch not watching powerpoint presentations. Get rid of all these useless Local Strategic Talking Shops and the free-lunch freeloaders who attend them.