2018 candidates

[jeffh]

As a reminder, those who voted for the 31% allowance increase who are up for re-election in May 2018 are -

Stephen Thomas - De Bruce
Alan Clark - Fens & Rossmere
Kaylee Sirs - Foggy Furze
Marjorie James - Manor House
Brenda Loynes - Rural West
Carl Richardson - Victoria

What will be interesting if these are selected, though James could be replaced by Daddy Belcher, or whether the Town's new non-partisan Labour Party

[jeffh]

As a reminder, those who voted for the 31% allowance increase who are up for re-election in May 2018 are -

Stephen Thomas - De Bruce
Alan Clark - Fens & Rossmere
Kaylee Sirs - Foggy Furze
Marjorie James - Manor House
Brenda Loynes - Rural West
Carl Richardson - Victoria

What will be interesting if these are selected, though James could be replaced by Daddy Belcher, or whether the Town's new non-partisan Labour Party will select their own candidates

[Johnny Bongo]

Maximum publicity, informing the electorate how these greedy B,stards voted in favour of the 31% rise, is needed at election time...which will hopefully ensure that the two faced, lying, thieving scumbags don't get re-elected! As others here have noticed/ commented, it seems that some labour councillors are beginning to regret voting the way they did...and now they are thinking of their bank balance in 2018 and beyond!   As for some of them (allegedly) being intimidated by the Scabs and Fanney...they (Scabs/ Fanney) are nothing but wind and pi$$...and they know it! 

[Username]

I'd hardly call a £35 per week (brfore tax) increase massive. I appreciate it has been met with hostility due to the headline 31% but surely this shows how little we allow our councillors. I would say increasing the allowance may help attract some people who are better able to perform the duties of councillor. The phrase "offer peanuts, get monkeys" springs to mind and we all know what we do with monkeys.

[fred c]

Look at the front page....... the LabTor coalition didn't provide value for money before the greedy t***s gave themselves the rise....

[Username]

Look at the front page....... the LabTor coalition didn't provide value for money before the greedy t***s gave themselves the rise....

Value for money is subjective. Whether or not we agree with the decisions made, and let me assure you I disagree with many of them, it is still subjective. As long as the elected councillors take part in the committees, help make decisions, turn up to meetings, basically take part in the process then they're doing what they were elected to do. The subjective value is whether we like or agree with the decisions made.

I certainly can't agree to the label greedy based on the allowance increase. I'm open to other information to support it but not on this. £35 a week is hardly earth shattering, even for me and I am far from a wealthy man.

[Username]

And that is pre tax. You'll be looking at £10-£15 for some of them at best.

[Inspector Knacker]

I'd hardly call a £35 per week (brfore tax) increase massive. I appreciate it has been met with hostility due to the headline 31% but surely this shows how little we allow our councillors. I would say increasing the allowance may help attract some people who are better able to perform the duties of councillor. The phrase "offer peanuts, get monkeys" springs to mind and we all know what we do with monkeys.

Well we've definitely got the monkeys, but the monkeys ain't going anywhere. They'll just buy more bananas. Does anyone believe that old chestnut about paying more to  get a better standard of Councillor. Instead of getting useless Councillors, you just get better paid useless Councillors.

[jeffh]

I'd hardly call a £35 per week (brfore tax) increase massive. I appreciate it has been met with hostility due to the headline 31% but surely this shows how little we allow our councillors. I would say increasing the allowance may help attract some people who are better able to perform the duties of councillor. The phrase "offer peanuts, get monkeys" springs to mind and we all know what we do with monkeys.

Well we've definitely got the monkeys, but the monkeys ain't going anywhere. They'll just buy more bananas. Does anyone believe that old chestnut about paying more to  get a better standard of Councillor. Instead of getting useless Councillors, you just get better paid useless Councillors.

When Cranney was interviewed on Radio Tees he went to great lengths to say the councillors were getting an allowance rise and not a pay rise.  It then follows that these allowances are paid to compensate councillors for carrying out council related work above and beyond their normal job, so I don't see how increasing this allowance will attract more suitable people to be councillors as they will already be being paid from their full time job.  For me the main factors in deciding whether somebody could be a councillor would be commitment and time - money couldn't buy those.

For me the more money argument simply attracts the wrong type of person, the sort of person who is doing it for the money and only the money, plus I can't see many of them standing aside to let better people do the job.  In essence what the Leader is saying, when he uses the money argument, is we aren't good enough, so provide more money and people will come forward who are - we'll find out next year

[Inspector Knacker]

Just suppose a  bus load of eminently qualified people joins the local party and decide to put themselves forward out of a desire to offer their talents. How many of the motley crew would stand aside ?
You either go into this to serve your town or to enhance yourself. The money argument is an irrelevance, it's a nice little earner and you end up with so many sheep, there may well be an EU subsidy for them in our council chamber.

[Username]

How about looking at things from a slightly different angle? The allowance is to enable councillors to put in the time needed to carry out their responsibilities properly. This means they may need to take time off work to attend meetings etc. That is the purpose of the allowance. Now, imagine someone with the abiltiy to be a very good councillor, this person has a very low income, this person also would like to be involved to enrich the town. Under the previous allowance that person would lost so much money fullfilling duties correctly that they would either: miss all meetings or not be able to take part in any committees (no point standing in that event), or could deliver results but have family go hungry (which is unacceptable).

I see this as allowing a wider range of people, particularly liw income people, to be involved without too much disruption to their standard of living. Surely that is worth the pittance increase which has caused such outrage.

As for people standimg aside to allow others to stand where better qualified: the party members select the candidates. The more people involved the less influence a few people may have. It may not be a choice to stand aside in certain circumstances.

[jeffh]

How about looking at things from a slightly different angle? The allowance is to enable councillors to put in the time needed to carry out their responsibilities properly. This means they may need to take time off work to attend meetings etc. That is the purpose of the allowance. Now, imagine someone with the abiltiy to be a very good councillor, this person has a very low income, this person also would like to be involved to enrich the town. Under the previous allowance that person would lost so much money fullfilling duties correctly that they would either: miss all meetings or not be able to take part in any committees (no point standing in that event), or could deliver results but have family go hungry (which is unacceptable).

I see this as allowing a wider range of people, particularly liw income people, to be involved without too much disruption to their standard of living. Surely that is worth the pittance increase which has caused such outrage.

As for people standimg aside to allow others to stand where better qualified: the party members select the candidates. The more people involved the less influence a few people may have. It may not be a choice to stand aside in certain circumstances.

The question that then needs to be asked is how many meetings are held on an evening so people don't have to take time off work.  We know that the SRA attracting meetings all take place during the day - if the Lab/Tor majority, which populate the chairs of every committee, wanted to really help they would be more open to evening meetings.

I seem to remember a couple of Full Council Meetings ago, when Martin-Wells tried to have a go at the non Lab/Tor group over on-attendance at meetings, within a second Paul Thompson's hand was up to have this very debate, whilst Devlin closed it down immediately.

I still maintain that money won't attract better people, the issue for me is time.

Maybe Mike Hill's approach of a Non Partisan Labour Group for the benefit of the town may well be the answer - this could have the effect of replacing some of the present incumbants in favour of those who are really interested in doing the town a service.

[Johnny Bongo]

The allowance is to enable councillors to put in the time needed to carry out their responsibilities properly. This means they may need to take time off work to attend meetings etc. That is the purpose of the allowance.

You've hit the nail on the head there, 'Username'.....but it's your own head.  Notice the highlighted bits in your quote...the Labour councillors haven't been responsible, imo, with many, many schemes, decisions, etc, and do not seem to have the mental and moral capacity to do so, now and in the future.  As for 'take time off work'... most of them don't have a proper job, so an increase in 'allowances', however small you may think it is, is their  only source  of money.  Naturally, they are not going to refuse it, are they? 

[Username]

In response to Jeff: The issue is indeed time. Hence the allowance to compensate for time lost at work. It's a similar set up with some emergency services. The response volunteers leave work to attend an emergency and the loss of pay is offset to a degree by a small allowance for attending the inicdent. Pay is still lost but people do this because helping people is more important than their own pocket but, losing the pay without an allowance would prevent some from doing this valuable work. People have bills to pay and mouths to feed.

Johnny: I'm sure if you listed some of those schemes and decisions etc we might well agree. As for a proper job and capacity, if people aren't up to the job have them replaced. Not by finger pointing and shouting but by having candidates who are better, either within the local Labour Party or in another parter within their wards. If people have chosen to step up to the responsibilities more than others and it becomes a defector job then good not hem for doing their bit as long as they're up to it.

To both: I've been in council meetings where the time of various meetings was discussed. The chairs of each committee have the freedom to hold the meetings whenever they wish. IT was mentioned that evening meetings in various parts of the town were held but it was still the same people who attended regardless. This doesn't change the fact that the allowance is there to mitigate any loss of income from primary employment when carrying out council duties. Yes some people will lose a little income when they choose council work over their primary work (where applicable), this is the same in many sectors and for many people who take part in charity or volunteer work. It's all about getting the people willing to make that sacrifice while still being up to the task.

[mk1]

. It's all about getting the people willing to make that sacrifice while still being up to the task.

The SCAB family, Wells, Cranney, Barclay and James are clearly not 'up to the task'. You know it and I know it. They have stitched up the selection process in both Tory and Labour Party so that they only select those who they know will bend to their will.