Councillors agree rise in expenses

[davieG]

Nice to know they're thinking about their constituents at this difficult time!

Councillors agreed to increase their allowances by 2.45 per cent yesterday.

Leicester City Council's ruling Labour group voted in favour of the increase at the Town Hall.

It comes a year after they agreed rises of up to 37 per cent.

The proposal, put forward by an independent panel, is the same amount that local government employees are getting.

However, many opposition councillors voted against the extra cash.

Councillor John Mugglestone, leader of the Conservative group, said: "With the state the country is in, it's not appropriate for us to accept this rise."

Liberal Democrat group leader Councillor Peter Coley said: "If people we represent are facing hardship and losing their jobs, it doesn't sit too well that we're accepting cosy pay rises."

Council leader Ross Willmott admitted: "It's not going to be a popular decision, but for me it is the right thing to do."

Last year backbench councillors' basic pay increased from £6,918 to £9,500. It is now set to go up to £9,732. Coun Willmott saw his allowance rise from £42,651 to £54,000 last year. This will now rise to £55,322.

[Thracian]

Nice to know they're thinking about their constituents at this difficult time!

Interesting to hear to that while, in one week, 300,000 workers in the private (productive) sector lost their jobs, not one employee on the public payroll (non productive) lost their jobs and Brown intends to add another 50,000 to the 500,000 presently employed slaves to the state.

[Ultra]

So how do workers at the Royal Bank of Scotland, doing exactly the same jobs as they were last week, suddenly switch from "productive" to "non-productive" just because their bank has passed into public ownership?

It's complete nonsense.

Sadly we can expect a lot more of this, should the Thatcherites be returned to power.

[Ultra]

Councillor John Mugglestone, leader of the Conservative group, said: "With the state the country is in, it's not appropriate for us to accept this rise."

Liberal Democrat group leader Councillor Peter Coley said: "If people we represent are facing hardship and losing their jobs, it doesn't sit too well that we're accepting cosy pay rises."

The rises have now been agreed, but individual councillors, if they so wish, have the option of foregoing them if they so wish.

Strangely enough, NONE ever do.

And there are plenty of councils run by the Tories and Lib Dems (including the County Council) where members are paid far more than in Leicester.

[davieG]

So how do workers at the Royal Bank of Scotland, doing exactly the same jobs as they were last week, suddenly switch from "productive" to "non-productive" just because their bank has passed into public ownership?

It's complete nonsense.

Sadly we can expect a lot more of this, should the Thatcherites be returned to power.

The rises have now been agreed, but individual councillors, if they so wish, have the option of foregoing them if they so wish.

Strangely enough, NONE ever do.

And there are plenty of councils run by the Tories and Lib Dems (including the County Council) where members are paid far more than in Leicester.

Others doing wrong doesn't make Leicester City Council right or justify their ambivalence to their constituents.

[Daggers]

Someone show me a councillor who isn't a self-serving, self-important willy puller? I've not met one yet.

[davieG]

Someone show me the councillor who's the most self-serving, self-important willy puller? I've not met one yet.

If ever a description was more apt I've not seen it!

[breadandcheese]

So how do workers at the Royal Bank of Scotland, doing exactly the same jobs as they were last week, suddenly switch from "productive" to "non-productive" just because their bank has passed into public ownership?

It's complete nonsense.

Sadly we can expect a lot more of this, should the Thatcherites be returned to power.

You don't half talk rubbish with your blinded anti-Thatcher stance.

We have failed to have a debate in this country as to what the appropriate size of the public sector should be. The private sector has to support the public sector, by the very nature of its tax-funded composition. This is not to put a negative stance or patronising view on the public sector as without it, the private sector cannot function. However it is through this that one can draw conclusions as to what is productive and what is not in terms of their contribution to each other.

The public sector can only grow if the private sector can support it.

Currently, I believe the public sector is too large, not because I want to cut services, but simply that we as a country cannot afford it. As the private sector shrinks with more job losses, the proportion of public sector to private sector becomes even more bloated. If that makes me a Thatcherite, then so be it.

[davieG]

You don't half talk rubbish with your blinded anti-Thatcher stance.

We have failed to have a debate in this country as to what the appropriate size of the public sector should be. The private sector has to support the public sector, by the very nature of its tax-funded composition. This is not to put a negative stance or patronising view on the public sector as without it, the private sector cannot function. However it is through this that one can draw conclusions as to what is productive and what is not in terms of their contribution to each other.

The public sector can only grow if the private sector can support it.

Currently, I believe the public sector is too large, not because I want to cut services, but simply that we as a country cannot afford it. As the private sector shrinks with more job losses, the proportion of public sector to private sector becomes even more bloated. If that makes me a Thatcherite, then so be it.

I just knew some twat would bring sense, logic, perspective and reality into this.

[breadandcheese]

I just knew some twat would bring sense, logic, perspective and reality into this.

Ha ha, my apologies. Bring back Mao Tze Tung.