Living off the fat of the land.

[Gayle]

Well I would defend any of the councillors for taking the allowances and expenses. If I'd have been elected then too right I would have done it too.

I spend a lot of time in the council offices and some of the councillors are in there most of the time. As for making them take minimum pay - they'd be claiming more if they did that. Being on the council is a 24hr thing, 7 days a week - people ring them up at all hours to complain or comment on things and expect them to be at their beck and call. They don't earn a salary for being on the council and the amount they can claim comes no where near the salary that they'd be missing out on if they worked elsewhere.

Whilst the expenses hike might have seemed like a big one, let's put it into perspective - Britcliffe only spent about 5 nights away last year (or something like that) very few others actually spent any nights away. The additional amount claimed is probably peanuts.

[cashman]

wasting yer time trying to give examples rindy, me grandad always used to say- ya can't put sense where there is none.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

I shall continue commenting on things I think are important from my non-partisan position.

Which presumably isn't when Labour are hypocritical about expenses and spend them despite voting to keep 'em down, judging by your refusal to condemn it. You're risking your moral high horse of independence here. I may have to stop taking your non-partisan position seriously.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Gayle

Well I would defend any of the councillors for taking the allowances and expenses. If I'd have been elected then too right I would have done it too.

I spend a lot of time in the council offices and some of the councillors are in there most of the time. As for making them take minimum pay - they'd be claiming more if they did that. Being on the council is a 24hr thing, 7 days a week - people ring them up at all hours to complain or comment on things and expect them to be at their beck and call. They don't earn a salary for being on the council and the amount they can claim comes no where near the salary that they'd be missing out on if they worked elsewhere.

Whilst the expenses hike might have seemed like a big one, let's put it into perspective - Britcliffe only spent about 5 nights away last year (or something like that) very few others actually spent any nights away. The additional amount claimed is probably peanuts.

I think your reading my script Gayle, but you put things for more eloquently than I ever could. I know that Brian Walmsley worked out that if he was paid the minimum hourly rate he would be a hell of a sight better off. Earlier this year I was having a drink in Ossy Social and Brian came in about 9-40pm, he told me that he had been out of the house since 8-30am thats over 13 hours and believe me that ain't a one off. Gayle is quite right in saying that councillors are on call 24/7 and by that I mean all councillors of all parties, its a thankless job, because working on behalf of the general public is a nightmare. All anybody has to do is ask one question, look in the mirror and ask would I work for me, iF the answers no forget being a councillor you won't make it

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Which presumably isn't when Labour are hypocritical about expenses and spend them despite voting to keep 'em down, judging by your refusal to condemn it. You're risking your moral high horse of independence here. I may have to stop taking your non-partisan position seriously.

Blinkerd yet again!

If you'd care to do a search on Accy Web you'll find exactly what I think regarding whether M.P.'s full expenses should be published, and the attacks on trying to block the proposed transparency. The Labour leader of the Commons Michael Martin came in for particular bashing.

It's really too laborious to keep repeating what I believe to be true every time a new thread starts on a subject, when it's already been said.

Quiet day in your ivory tower in Hull?

Must be, for my views to be so important to you.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Gayle

Whilst the expenses hike might have seemed like a big one, let's put it into perspective - Britcliffe only spent about 5 nights away last year (or something like that) very few others actually spent any nights away. The additional amount claimed is probably peanuts.

Five times £170 equals £850.

Peanuts to some maybe, but I suspect not for many. Especially when our neighbouring councillors can apparently accommodate themselves for much less than the ones here in Hyndburn.

The petulant claim from Cllr. Britcliffe that if anyone knows where you can eat in London for £10, instead of the increased £25, has been addressed, because you can eat very well for a tenner in the capital, and evidence has been supplied.

No one is saying our councillors don't do a good job, and work hard, above and beyond the call of duty, and no one should be out of pocket for providing a public service as a councillor.

It just happened that they voted to increase their allowances by such a large percentage when most of the rest of the country is having to tighten it's collective belt.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

It just happened that they voted to increase their allowances by such a large percentage when most of the rest of the country is having to tighten it's collective belt.

its that simple fact that seems to have gone oer the heads of some.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cashman

its that simple fact that seems to have gone oer the heads of some.

Still, they're worth it.

If you want the best you have to pay for it.

[katex]

Originally Posted by garinda

Five times £170 equals £850.

And you my little poppet are still being blinkered about other people's points of view in this discussion .. is only a ceiling price and last time Cllr Britcliffe stayed in London, he paid £71 room rate, which to me is blooming cheap !



The petulant claim from Cllr. Britcliffe that if anyone knows where you can eat in London for £10, instead of the increased £25, has been addressed, because you can eat very well for a tenner in the capital, and evidence has been supplied.

Well, maybe for you who lived in London for a while, but for someone visiting rarely, would take many hours to locate a decent evening meal for this ... unless McDonalds or Pizza Hut is on the menu.
Finished up staying at the London Kensington Hilton .. try and find a restaurant on Holland Park Road, that has anything around £10.
Dinner, bed, breakfast for single room is now £ 145 ... blimey though, the car park is now £30 for 24 hour stay !

No one is saying our councillors don't do a good job, and work hard, above and beyond the call of duty, and no one should be out of pocket for providing a public service as a councillor.

Exactly !

It just happened that they voted to increase their allowances by such a large percentage when most of the rest of the country is having to tighten it's collective belt.

Feel probably long overdue and should have been done ages ago.
Again think this increase is only to take in London, not the rest of the country, which can be done much cheaper of course.

Think it best to agree to differ here ...
Am not a snob that has not stayed in the Travel Lodges/Holiday Express's of this world and many grotty establishments .. LOL

[garinda]

Originally Posted by katex

Think it best to agree to differ here ...
Am not a snob that has not stayed in the Travel Lodges/Holiday Express's of this world and many grotty establishments .. LOL

Like I said earlier, I do think your situation is different, in that your expenses came from your employer, and not the public purse, just as my own did in a similar situation. I always booked the best deal for me, and for the company's coffers.

I still think the percentage increase of the allowances is outrageous, when neighbouring councils can make sure their councillors can apparently do it for much less.

Perhaps H.B.C. would be wiser to spend money on some good P.R., so it doesn't look like they're throwing financial caution to the wind, whilst the rest of the country feels the increasingly hard bite of the credit crunch. A good P.R. person would be able to explain when is and when isn't a good time to do something like this, so it becomes a little more palatable to us the great unwashed.

Like you say, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

(By the way knowing of reasonable places to eat well and cheaply has nothing to do with living there for seventeen years. Most available guide books will mention the Stockpot chain, and other similar restaurants. There's even one in Basil Street in sumptuous Knightsbridge, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but a stones throw, or a short cab ride, from the Kensington Hilton.)

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Blinkerd yet again!

If you'd care to do a search on Accy Web you'll find exactly what I think regarding whether M.P.'s full expenses should be published, and the attacks on trying to block the proposed transparency. The Labour leader of the Commons Michael Martin came in for particular bashing.

It's really too laborious to keep repeating what I believe to be true every time a new thread starts on a subject, when it's already been said.

Quiet day in your ivory tower in Hull?

Must be, for my views to be so important to you.

Your views are always important to me. I note how you still refuse to condemn the hypocrisy of Labour at HBC. If the Conservatives vote through independently assessed expenses, you call foul, when Labour use those expenses, after voting against them and screaming from the rooftops, you refuse to open your mouth. Independence is a wonderful thing eh.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Your views are always important to me. I note how you still refuse to condemn the hypocrisy of Labour at HBC. If the Conservatives vote through independently assessed expenses, you call foul, when Labour use those expenses, after voting against them and screaming from the rooftops, you refuse to open your mouth. Independence is a wonderful thing eh.

Legally there is nothing to stop councillors of any party putting in expenses for the new increased rate, now they have been voted for and passed.

If it came to light that any councillors who'd voted against the increase, and then took an expense claim to the upper limit of the new allowance, I'd find that morally wrong, and I would condemn their hypocrisy.

Clear enough for you?

If it isn't, try tilting your head away from the screen a little, to allow better vision via the side of your one party agenda blinkers.

[Eric]

I don't know too much about your local politics, but it appears that what your councillor is doing is not too outrageous in itself, but is in its timing. Many politicians in Canada are accepting a salary freeze and a cap on expenses ... it is a fitting gesture given the tough economic times the world is facing. Seems like your councillor is kinda dense, or insensitive ... or maybe both. A time when your PM admits that the UK is officially in recession .... (he did this in an interview he had with the CBC; so he must have said something about it to the British public) ... is no time to stick one's snout a little deeper into the public trough.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Eric

I don't know too much about your local politics, but it appears that what your councillor is doing is not too outrageous in itself, but is in its timing. Many politicians in Canada are accepting a salary freeze and a cap on expenses ... it is a fitting gesture given the tough economic times the world is facing. Seems like your councillor is kinda dense, or insensitive ... or maybe both. A time when your PM admits that the UK is officially in recession .... (he did this in an interview he had with the CBC; so he must have said something about it to the British public) ... is no time to stick one's snout a little deeper into the public trough.

see even n ex-pat can see it, pity some who live here are too blinkered.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

If it came to light that any councillors who'd voted against the increase, and then took an expense claim to the upper limit of the new allowance, I'd find that morally wrong, and I would condemn their hypocrisy.

Very clear. Thank-you for condemning them. I agree it's wrong for them to do so, its very cheap to vote against expenses, shout and scream about it, then take it up.