Two stories caught my eye this morning that should send taxpayers' blood boiling.
First into the trough was Kent County Council who pushed up their allowances by a shocking 8% last week! The opposition, to their credit, tried to delay the increase by proposing a public consultation. As the ruling party controls 74 of the 84 seats, quite unsurprisingly, this was defeated and the pay hike voted through. Always good with other people’s cash (remember Kent lost a fortune in Iceland), perhaps it’s worth asking KCC leader Cllr. Paul Carter what he was thinking to propose a substantial pay increase in a recession. He can be contacted here: paul.carter@kent.gov.uk
Believing the above was a one-off, you can imagine my shock at seeing another council attempt to push through another pay increase as one of its first actions after June’s elections. The Lancashire Evening Post reports that Lancashire County Council was working to increase its pay on their first day in power. Adding insult to injury, the council amended an Independent Remuneration Panel report to recommend itself a higher salary. Please do contact Cllr. Geoff Driver, leader of the council, to ask him why one of his first acts as leader was to increase councillors’ pay above an independent recommendation. He can be contacted here: geoff.driver@lancashire.gov.uk
As always please be polite but do hold these troughing politicians to account.






















Weren't Kent already paying some of the highest allowances according to the LGA 2008 members allowanaces survey
Posted by: NigelC | Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 12:46 PM
Thanks for highlighting Kent Councilors swift action in collecting a pay increase pretty much as their first priority.
Posted by: tony flaig | Wednesday, 01 July 2009 at 12:44 AM
Tim,
I am not sure we are in danger of over reacting to the KCC rise. I am told that this job done conscientiously requires a time commitment of at least 30 hours per week which works out at c.£8.50 per hour, if this is correct then I do not consider this an unreasonable sum if anything it is rather paltry? As much as I would love to serve my community as a councillor I couldn't afford to do so at this rate and I am not wealthy enough to consider doing so altruistically.
regards
Chris Neal
Posted by: Chris Neal | Thursday, 02 July 2009 at 03:09 PM
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your comment.
Given that Kent CC have squandered taxpayers' money on their own TV station as well as losing money in Iceland and fighting against FoI requests to find out the remuneration of their top earners - any pay increase, from our perspective, looks like rewarding failure. It's particularly questionable given the eocnomic circumstances we're in.
Posted by: Tim Aker | Thursday, 02 July 2009 at 03:32 PM
We've all heard plenty about snouts in the trough, but it doesn't seem to be the case in the Lancashire council story.
They're not asking for more money overall, just dividing it more fairly: the published numbers work out at £686.87 per seat - exactly the same for each of the main 3 parties.
Seems right & fair to me, unless I'm missing something? Why is Lancashire a "council in the trough" ?
Posted by: C Sharman | Friday, 03 July 2009 at 09:16 PM
Ordinary people are fine, but once tainted with politics, the rot sets in. The great writer and poet e.e.cummings (sic) once wrote; "A politician is a backside upon which everyone has sat but a man".
'Nuff said.
charles covey Woking
Posted by: charles covey | Saturday, 04 July 2009 at 06:31 AM