Those annoying 'A boards'

[Duke Fame]

Oh dear, I seem to be starting 2013 by agreeing with Duke.   

I have a lot of sympathy for that view, and it would certainly do a lot to revive local democracy, which is pretty moribund.  But if we went down that road, I think we'd have to do it with business rates as well as council tax - i.e. make them variable, and raised and spent locally.  I can see it working in relatively affluent Stockport, but areas like Manchester and Tameside, with high levels of relative deprivation, would never be able to balance their books on council tax alone, I fear. 

In an ideal world, the council tax & rates will be transferred to a % of income & profits respectively.

As for areas of deprivation, the current system of throwing money at deprived areas has not worked.  If local economies thrive money being spent by the state, the likes of Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle etc will be thriving over the past 40 years.

My way, people will vote out the inefficient councils and it is in the council's interest to maximise the incomes of business and people in it's area - i.e. help them excel rather than keep them needy (a bit of Marx for 2013). 

[Dave]

Oh dear, I seem to be starting 2013 by agreeing with Duke.   

I have a lot of sympathy for that view, and it would certainly do a lot to revive local democracy, which is pretty moribund.  But if we went down that road, I think we'd have to do it with business rates as well as council tax - i.e. make them variable, and raised and spent locally.  I can see it working in relatively affluent Stockport, but areas like Manchester and Tameside, with high levels of relative deprivation, would never be able to balance their books on council tax alone, I fear. 

[Duke Fame]

Thus we live in a Lib Dem Authority which I would expect to be fundamentally different to Tory Trafford or Labour Tameside irrespective of how good or bad the officers.

Whilst that is true, I think there is a fundamental problem with funding. The local council should've raising all their money locally through council tax rather than have central hand outs, on that basis, when the local authority over spends, local people suffer and can vote the council out in favour of a more prudent one.

The recent row over central cuts would then be irrelevant and we would get the local council we deserve.

[simonesaffron]

Obviously,

as usual, we are all agreed.


Happy New Year !

[wheels]

With respect thats absolute rubbish. Councillors are not there as a level of management. They are there as politicans to set the political agenda not implement the management processes required to bring about the political agenda. Coucillors are not there to micro manage but to set the wider agenda.

Thus we live in a Lib Dem Authority which I would expect to be fundamentally different to Tory Trafford or Labour Tameside irrespective of how good or bad the officers are.

And I thought Coucillors did apply for the job, its called an election, which they can win so they can take abuse, get rewarded baddly, lose pension when taking time off work for public duties and all the other goodies that go with the role.

[lotus elan]

If we are going to be accurate she "gave up" her job as an HE Lecturer when she was "Deputy" Leader of the Council and did both jobs for many years in tandem and received incomes from both. Which gives an indication of how much time was applied to being Deputy Leader. You can't be at a meeting with council officers when you are delivering a lecture to a room full of students - that's too good a trick.

If you take the current Council Executive at least half of them have full - time jobs/businesses whilst the other half are past retirement age, one of them is over 80 years of age. I am not casting any aspersions about anybody's ability/commitment but does that seem to you like a good mix for running an organisation. Half with other full - time jobs the other half - Dad's Army. To me that does not support, commitment,energy, application, etc. etc.

I don't begrudge the Council Leader her 40 grand per year, that's my point I think she should get more, I think that all Councillors should get more. Then we might attract different types to be Councillors.


Well as at the time the current leader was Deputy Leader the DLs allowance was £1,800 I think she can be forgive for continuing to work in education.

I do begrudge the CE his exhorbitant salary - it is far too much for what is expected, and there are other officers on similar pay to him. It isn't the Councillors that take the money out of the Council there's only 63 of them and like you say most of them are on less than 10k anyway. It is the Officers that take the lion's share out of Councils annd there are thousands of them - far too many on far too much money and some of them on pointless tasks that should not be any part of Council business. 

In further irony of the whole situation I was told last night that one of the Marple 6 is standing down next election, well I knew that anyway. The problem is that they can't get a Candidate to replace him. As you would expect there are not many young dynamics who have either the time or the inclination to stand for a £9000 + plus per year job. It seems that the most suitable candidate identified is an ex Councillor now 80 years of age. Well here we go again.

It seems that our National politicians get younger whilst our local one's do the opposite. The time is not far off when we'll be digging them up to stand or maybe using cardboard replicas of the one's that have retired/died.

At least council officers have to actually apply for their jobs and go through a proper recruitment process unlike councillors who seem to only have to say 'I'm sort of interested in being a councillor' and then the next minute, they're in! Maybe Councillors should have to go through a process - prove that they have the required experience and qualifications before they are allowed to stand as a Councillor? Then they could be paid a better rate for the job and young people might see it as an attractive career option? Might get more young people actually interested in politics as well.

[Duke Fame]

I recall at school & uni, if you weren't very ambitious or bright you tended to go to the public sector.

If we really have the most qualified people in public sector jobs, this is a problem, we have the brightest sparks counting A boards and devising licencing plans for such items and the real dunces are driving the economy forward, innovating etc on which our future & children's future depends.

Duke, you haven't been paying attention.    Most unskilled jobs (i.e. those for which you don't need qualifications) are now in the private sector, for reasons which I have explained above, and which are obvious and well known.  Jobs such as street cleaning, refuse collection, dinner ladies, care home staff etc etc have moved from the public to the private sector over the past thirty years or so.   These are vital jobs that have to be done, but no-one would seriously suggest that they are 'driving the economy forward, innovating etc'.  And by the way, it would be polite not to describe people who do them as 'dunces'.  

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/27/public-private-sector-pay

To be honest Dave, I was rather hoping the 'dunces' were those counting A boards and occupying themselves fro 9 - 4.30 with th eother civil servants etc where they can't harm the outside world. 

The day you need to refer to the Guardian is when your argument has gone.

[Dave]

I recall at school & uni, if you weren't very ambitious or bright you tended to go to the public sector.

If we really have the most qualified people in public sector jobs, this is a problem, we have the brightest sparks counting A boards and devising licencing plans for such items and the real dunces are driving the economy forward, innovating etc on which our future & children's future depends.

Duke, you haven't been paying attention.    Most unskilled jobs (i.e. those for which you don't need qualifications) are now in the private sector, for reasons which I have explained above, and which are obvious and well known.  Jobs such as street cleaning, refuse collection, dinner ladies, care home staff etc etc have moved from the public to the private sector over the past thirty years or so.   These are vital jobs that have to be done, but no-one would seriously suggest that they are 'driving the economy forward, innovating etc'.  And by the way, it would be polite not to describe people who do them as 'dunces'.  

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/27/public-private-sector-pay

[Duke Fame]

Well Duke I happened to notice there board as I walk along Market St at 9am on 27th and I would think that less than half your 45 business had bothered to open. Would seem they just could not be bothered serving local people.

And your point is?

1/2 of the 45 businesses in vicinity were closed and less than  1/2 of those had an A board which together amounts to a little over 3 1/2 sq mtrs in the rather large pedestrianised area of some 800 sq metres.

Remind me why you think we are paying a team of council staff an average of £28k each for 3 years to come up with a solution to what you apear to have proved to be a non-existent problem

[Duke Fame]

Wow, the average public sector worker earns more than the average wage. Does that not tell us there is a problem.

Not really.  What it tells us is the the average public sector employee is better qualified, and in a job that requires higher level qualifications, than the average private sector worker.   This is well known and well documented.

The interesting thing about this is that, AFAIK, it is a relatively recent phenomenon, resulting from the widespread outsourcing of lower level jobs (street cleaning, refuse collection, dinner ladies, car home staff etc etc) from the public sector to the private, thus driving down the average wage and qualification level of private sector workers.

A more like-for-like comparison between public and private sector pay is by qualification and job level (professional, managerial, administrative, skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled etc etc).  This presents a different picture.  For example it seems that graduates are paid more in the private sector than they are  the public, but for non-graduates it's the other way round. 

I very much doubt that is true but if so it's scary. I recall at school & uni, if you weren't very ambitious or bright you tended to go to the public sector.

If we really have the most qualified people in public sector jobs, this is a problem, we have the brightest sparks counting A boards and devising licencing plans for such items and the real dunces are driving the economy forward, innovating etc on which our future & children's future depends.

[wheels]

I will do that again as I made a mess of it.

Well Simone at the time the current council leader was Deputy Leader the allowance for DL was £1,800pa  so I think most people will understand her need to continue working.

[wheels]

If we are going to be accurate she "gave up" her job as an HE Lecturer when she was "Deputy" Leader of the Council and did both jobs for many years in tandem and received incomes from both. Which gives an indication of how much time was applied to being Deputy Leader. You can't be at a meeting with council officers when you are delivering a lecture to a room full of students - that's too good a trick.

If you take the current Council Executive at least half of them have full - time jobs/businesses whilst the other half are past retirement age, one of them is over 80 years of age. I am not casting any aspersions about anybody's ability/commitment but does that seem to you like a good mix for running an organisation. Half with other full - time jobs the other half - Dad's Army. To me that does not support, commitment,energy, application, etc. etc.

I don't begrudge the Council Leader her 40 grand per year, that's my point I think she should get more, I think that all Councillors should get more. Then we might attract different types to be Councillors.


Well as at the time the current leader was Deputy Leader the DLs allowance was £1,800 I think she can be forgive for continuing to work in education.

I do begrudge the CE his exhorbitant salary - it is far too much for what is expected, and there are other officers on similar pay to him. It isn't the Councillors that take the money out of the Council there's only 63 of them and like you say most of them are on less than 10k anyway. It is the Officers that take the lion's share out of Councils annd there are thousands of them - far too many on far too much money and some of them on pointless tasks that should not be any part of Council business. 

In further irony of the whole situation I was told last night that one of the Marple 6 is standing down next election, well I knew that anyway. The problem is that they can't get a Candidate to replace him. As you would expect there are not many young dynamics who have either the time or the inclination to stand for a £9000 + plus per year job. It seems that the most suitable candidate identified is an ex Councillor now 80 years of age. Well here we go again.

It seems that our National politicians get younger whilst our local one's do the opposite. The time is not far off when we'll be digging them up to stand or maybe using cardboard replicas of the one's that have retired/died.

[wheels]

I doubt many elected members are initially attracted by the money there are other more compelling factors. A desire to contribute, to do some good, status, power all are more attractive I suggest than the money and if as some suggest the financial rewards were increased why would anyone think that more able people will get elected as first they need to be selected and selection will still go to the same individuals as are currently selected.

[simonesaffron]

Dave,

I'm not sure a comparison between private/public, pay/qualifications was being made.

I thought that the comparison was being made within the Council and why some Officers are paid so highly whereas Councillors are paid so little which is possibly why we've got the Councillors that we've got, where the money is absolutely no incentive at all to the right kind of people.

Let's be honest 10k per year is lousy as a salary that you have to work all week for but it's not bad as a pension supplement if you don't have to do anything other than show your face once a month at the Council Meeting/Area Committee.      

[Dave]

Indeed. That's where most private sector workers really lose out.