Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
A Fat Cat pay increase for Haringey councillors
Here is the link to the new 'pay scale" for 2016-17.
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/documents/s84394/MembersAllowanc...
And here is the link to the allowances for 2015-16.
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/members_allowa...
No time tonight to do a full analysis, but have done the maths for the Leader and the Cabinet's special allowance.
An extra £2,093 for the Leader - from 31,497 to 33,590
An extra £1,569 for Cabinet - from 23,622 to 25,191
Which I make a 6.6% increase.
The basic councillor allowance increases £203 from 10,500 to 10,703, A modest 1.9%.
I may say more on this, but for now will leave you to take in what councillors have chosen to do as the same time as many across the borough are facing financial hardship.
Tags for Forum Posts: councillor allowances, fat cat councillors, haringey councillors
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
Remind me Martin... How much does a councilor get paid?
I thought that they were all voluntary, they are not paid a salary for the work they do, no?
I think rather than focus on the increase to allowances if you can publish here how much each councilor took home (with and without expenses) we would get a better sense of how much our elected representatives actually cost us (note, I did not say get paid, or take home!).
I do not disagree that many are facing financial hardship, but Fat Cat is not really a term I would reserve for councilors. Give them a hard time instead when they 'waste' money (as some have done about jollies to Cannes), rip us off through corrupt practices, or waste millions on schemes that frankly go no where. In fact, I would go the other way and say if you want quality governance you need to pay for it and not expect many of these folks to have to work in other roles to pay their mortgages etc.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
"if you want quality governance you need to pay for it" <_ YES YES YES!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Philip on
-
The key issue here is hardly allowances, which are small potatoes. Haringey Council's social cleansing is the elephant in the room. The 'regeneration' of Tottenham is designed to privatise social housing and create a middle class housing hub.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
This seems to be broadly in line with allowances in other local authorities. I've provided links below to the the allowances in Westminter (Conservative) and Sutton (LibDem) as examples.
http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/cou...
https://www.sutton.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/2044/notice_of_allo...
-
-
I've just read the Tottenham Independent article about this. All elected members were allowed in enrol into the local government pension scheme (LGPS) but this has been stopped. What has actually happened is that the money that was annually paid into the pension scheme is now redistributed amongst members so there is no actual increase in spending nor has there been since 2011.
http://www.thetottenhamindependent.co.uk/news/12951076.display/
The net impact on members is that they will be worse off in the long term as the return on the money put into the LGPS was quite generous.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
They're all at it, are they? Which makes it okay?
Doesn't there ever come a point, Michael, when you ask yourself if you're defending the indefensible and simply repeating the official propaganda used to justify the increase?
Or perhaps accept at minimum that people who question the salaries "allowances" of "leading" councillors perhaps do have a reasonable point or two - especially at a time of brutal cuts?
What many if not most people don't realise is that "leading" councillors may also have other "allowances" from various London-wide and other bodies they serve on. A few thou here and a few there. All of which can be discovered - but usually by some patient searching though various websites.
I don't know if you remember a former councillor named Alan Dobbie. An affable bloke who went off to the Tories for a while when he was still a councillor. One reason he gave was disgust at his Labour colleagues informally discussing who should have which responsibility allowance. He was right of course. Sweeties.
More recently the responsibility allowance system has enabled Claire Kober - and no doubt other Council leaders elsewhere- to further bolster her power with, in effect, a payroll vote.
-
-
I think you mix up approval with an interest in facts. The headline suggests more money is being spent on councillor allowances when it is not. It also suggests that Haringey are in some way setting allowances (fat cat) an unreasonably high rate. The two comparator boroughs show that this isn't the case.
The report to the Council meeting includes an appendix on a level of allowances from an independent body and the Haringey allowances are lower than the suggested levels
On issues such as these I think it is important to have the best available information as that allows people to make better judgements
PS. There is definitive guidance on the receipt of multiple allowances and duplication of allowances is expressly
forbidden. If you that that rule is being flouted the Local Government Ombudsman would investigate I think
-
-
And a slight aside, it may seem like semantic nit picking but the difference between allowances and wages is important. Paying someone a wage implies a contract and that could lead to an interesting employment case if an councillor is not reelected and claims for a redundancy payment!
I think the introduction of Member allowance was important for two reasons . It recognised that the greater responsibility you had, the less likely you were able to have time to actually earn a living from employment. It also ended the situation where only the wealthy played at politics. If you look at political membership of the old boroughs that now make up the London boroughs, they were heavy with Lady Someone, Sir Whatsit and Commander Doodah.
-
-
The fact, Michael, is that Eric Pickles stopped the perk of councillors - who as you say are not employees - joining the Employees' Pension Scheme. I agreed with him.
It seems you and must agree to differ on this.
Another fact: Haringey councillors did not have to use the money freed up by Mr Pickles to pay themselves more. They could instead have behaved like real leaders and set an example. They chose to use the change as a rationalisation to increase their allowances. Again we disagree over what would have been the best course of action.The fact that comparable boroughs pay the same level of allowances, or that an "independent" body approved and sanitised them does not in my view, automatically make it "the best available information". Or excuse or prevent councillors from making their own ethical decisions.
It has always seemed to me that whether for MPs, or councillors, or Chief Executives or Directors the independent people offering neutral best information almost always explain why top salaries need to be ever higher. While of course, "efficiency savings" and "restructurings" almost always seem to mean that while people at the top earn more, those at the bottom earn less. Or are perhaps privatised out to agencies offering zero hours contracts.
I've always found it slightly amusing that Chief Executives' interests were served by a group called Solace as if these very excellent people needed "comfort or consolation in a time of great distress or sadness" when drawing their salaries.By the way, I'm not alleging that anyone is breaking the rules. I'm sure they've drafted the rules very carefully to ensure their multiple allowances are perfectly legal and above board. I was simply pointing out that when totting up what people get, it's worth having a look to see if there are other payments which accrue to them by virtue of their elected offices.
-
-
Hi Martin. I wondered if you had any observations on this story in light of the comments and the Tottenham Independent article
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Ball on
-
Only that it is obscene for the special councillors to be taking an extra 6.6% at a time when many in the borough face financial hardship and that the same councillors have voted through cuts to services locally. They take from those needing support and increase the amount going to themselves.
-
-
When my partner was a councillor in another London borough, I saw the amount of time and effort it needed at first-hand. As a councillor, vice-chair of one committee and a member of another, she could have spent every evening and all weekend on council business, with numerous day and evening meetings, Saturday surgeries and the local equivalent of “red boxes” (then, huge envelopes full of papers, now probably all e-mailed) arriving twice a week to be waded through. A borough with a turnover of almost £1 billion, it nonetheless relied on volunteers for its governance and to carry ultimate legal responsibility for its staff and actions.
This isn’t just an attempt to curry sympathy for sadly-misunderstood tribunes of the people. I’d suggest that running a council is time-consuming, responsible and often onerous; for a conscientious councillor, it’s a full-time second job. And while this model of local government continues, what’s the alternative to allowances? Full-time, paid councillors, indistinguishable from permanent officers such as a Chief Executive? (Far more expensive.) Or, as Michael Anderson said above, leaving local governance as the sole preserve of the wealthy who can afford to put in the hours required rather than earn a living? My partner was self-employed and could make the time needed, but woe-betide any employee without a sympathetic manager letting them take time out for council business.
There will always be complaints about some councillors gaming the system and of course everyone has a view on the level of allowances; but how else is there any chance of getting some kind of cross-section of society to represent local people?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
