HartlepoolPost Forum

Politics => Local Issues and Matters => Topic started by: DRiddle on April 09, 2019, 08: AM

Title: and then there were five . . .
Post by: DRiddle on April 09, 2019, 08: AM
I'm told there are now possibly just FIVE of the 33 councillors who do NOT get the 31% rise money in their 'pay packets'.
Reportedly the five are as follows:

Lesia Smith -Independent
James Black - Independent
Sue Little - Indepedent
Dave Hunter - Future leader of the local Labour Party
Brenda Harrison - Labour

There is some claims and counter claims about what the other 28 do with the money received, ranging from members who put it immediately to good causes and community projects, to those who clearly spend it on excessive alcohol consumption and tickling panthers.

Cranney was on record in a radio interview saying he would "probably give it to charity". My suggestion would be he gives it to one that looks after horses suffering from maltreatment.

Tony Richardson was NOT getting the money initially when he was a member of Putting Hartlepool First, but all others members of the Independent Union DO receive it, so Tony's position is unclear.

Read those election leaflets carefully people.

Title: Re: and then there were five . . .
Post by: Inspector Knacker on April 09, 2019, 12: PM
Wouldn't it be nice if they had to give a breakdown of what this 'much needed' money was spent on. Just a thought.
Title: Re: and then there were five . . .
Post by: Lucy Lass-Tick on April 09, 2019, 12: PM
Quote from: Inspector Knacker on April 09, 2019, 12: PM
Wouldn't it be nice if they had to give a breakdown of what this 'much needed' money was spent on. Just a thought.

Why did the phrase 'charity begins at home' come to mind?  :o  ::)
Title: Re: and then there were five . . .
Post by: Inspector Knacker on April 09, 2019, 02: PM
What happened to the concept of civic pride in serving the town. I have no objection to realistic expenses such as travel costs etc, but all such claims should be accompanied with a receipt.
Title: Re: and then there were five . . .
Post by: Heknocks68 on April 09, 2019, 07: PM
Civic pride was taken out by a power outage and apparently is somewhat without cover(s). There are all manner of potential outcomes and or losses over the time to fix the issue. The EU issue is a mere side show to local complexities. Elections etc etc. Ho hum. Time for a stroll.
Title: Re: and then there were five . . .
Post by: diSme on April 09, 2019, 08: PM
I absolutely condone recompense for out of pocket expenditure for council related business, but this whole wage system is disgraceful. It is a wage, and not recompense, and I don't see how it can be justified in our current financial climate.
Title: Re: and then there were five . . .
Post by: mk1 on April 09, 2019, 09: PM
Any ordinary Councillor in it for the money is insane. It just isn't worth the hassle or the  trouble. I would never do it. The real money is made by the Special Allowances and that is when you hit the big time.  You set your own wage and answer to no one.  I am convinced the sheep are putting up with the basic allowance in the hope they can lick the right ar*se and be given a Special Allowance.  Not much of that is  going spare with the SCABs shamelessly grabbing as many as they can.
Title: Re: and then there were five . . .
Post by: DRiddle on April 10, 2019, 11: AM
I don't even think the big money is in the special allowances. Even if you had your grubby mitts on the poisoned chalice you'd be on £39,740 made up of £23,844 leaders allowance, plus £7,948 basic councillors allowance, plus another £7,948 if you made yourself chair of finance and policy too.

There are some people who have became councillors in recent years who would have had to take a significant pay cut to be able to do that. Obviously there's the issue of whether being leader actually warrants the full time hours of a 'proper job', but if you're doing it properly it would/should.

I know of one current councillor who was earning nearly twice that figure from their 'proper job'. Which obviously begs the question 'Why would you even want to do a 'job' that pays half the salary of your current one?

Unless of course key positions in local government enabled you to access additional income streams such as third sector grant funding, income via funding from the Department for health (such as a slice of the £43 million allocated to heathwatch), or just blatantly setting up your own company which was immediately awarded funding with no tendering process like Wilcox and Cranney did with Who cares north east (that's last ones fact not speculation).

And those ones listed above are just the legitimate income streams.

Then of course there are some councillors such as this guy, who use their positions on key committees such as planning in a way that raises concern.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/westminster-councillor-robert-davis-gifts-hospitality-bribery-investigation-corruption-planning-a8245626.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/westminster-councillor-robert-davis-gifts-hospitality-bribery-investigation-corruption-planning-a8245626.html)

The fella above was a Tory councillor who resigned when it became clear he was sailing very close to the wind regarding his relationship to property developers.

I don't think he ended up being found guilty of anything though.


Title: Re: and then there were five . . .
Post by: jawsbbc on April 10, 2019, 05: PM
most of the scabal are allegedly guilty of the above