I blame Gary Barlow

The campaign group Tax Payers Alliance have been focusing on this too.

Haha! If anyone tries to use a Think Tank to promote their point of view its always best to follow the money….Oh! They don’t seem very open about who’s pulling the string at the Tax Payers Alliance, I wonder why that is?!?

http://www.whofundsyou.org

@drac & garym: my rate for delivering a short term contract was less than i would have earned for the same in the private sector. No distraction technique in use.

@pjm: councils have significant assets which they could use to generate revenue – without getting into large scale sales. It’s not all about cuts; there are sugnificant commercial opportunities which they could develop – if they could be bothered.
It’s very easy – and lazy – to be myopic and focus exclusively on funding cuts.
My original point still stands – too many council execs are grossly overpaid; reduced salaries and benefits would free up some £ to be spent more appropriately – every little helps…..

@ratnips: TPA funding is irrelevant.

TPA funding is irrelevant.

Of course it is. Is that the same as the union funding of the Labour party being irrelevant? And thats why the right wing press never mention it? 😆

Binners, this thread is veering off-track but thanks for your input ?

councils have significant assets which they could use to generate revenue – without getting into large scale sales. It’s not all about cuts; there are sugnificant commercial opportunities which they could develop – if they could be bothered.

What, like selling stuff off to the highest bidder? Councils are a public service, not some entrepreneurial arsehole jamboree.

@pjm: councils have significant assets which they could use to generate revenue – without getting into large scale sales. It’s not all about cuts; there are sugnificant commercial opportunities which they could develop – if they could be bothered.

They can’t win, can they?

When British Aerospace made a load of redundancies a few years ago, Burnley Council decided to intervene to keep the high skill, highly paid engineering jobs in the constituency. They got existing local businesses involved, effectively became a bank, and came up with grants and loans etc to encourage small and medium sized businesses, mainly in the Aerospace and motorsport sectors, to relocate there. It was hugely successful.

A lot of those companies relocated from the South East. They were discussing Burnleys economic success on Five Live and some cockwomble Tory MP (from the South East, obviously) referred to Burnley (Labour) Councils enrepateurial activity as – and I swear I’m not making this up – “tantamount to Communism”, and went on ranting about how it wasn’t the place of the Public Sector to be ‘interfering with the market’ in this way.

Lets be frank. The right just hate local government, and will just demonise them whatever they do, as they endlessly parrot their tedious and inaccurate public = bad, private = wonderful mantra

A google for “tantamount to communism” + burnley gives a googlewhack – one post in STW which was written by you.

And….?

Whats your point caller?

And….? Whats your point caller?

That something someone is supposed to have said on the radio that you’re reporting from memory without the context is pretty useless to anyone trying to work out exactly that was said and why.

What you’re describing doesn’t seem especially extreme to me, so maybe he was describing some individual aspect of it that you’ve forgotten.

My point is that our friend here, in traditional right-wing fashion, is accusing local councils of being lazy or passive. I’ve posted a link there to show a (Labour of all things?!!!) local council being anything but.

And from what I heard (who knows…. maybe I dreamt it?) the same right wingers are then wading in to that local same local council, saying that it shouldn’t be ‘interfering with the market’

So they can’t win. But its the knee-jerk right wingers who are actually the lazy, and passive ones, as they’re the ones trapped in the confines of their own ideology, yet singularly lacking the imagination, dynamism and entrepreneurial spirit they endlessly champion, but don’t seem to actually understand…

“My point”

I don’t think the fact you have a point excuses quoting ‘evidence’ nobody can verify.

Communism is a bit more extreme than a bit of minor tinkering with the market.

I see absolutely no reason at all that a public servant is paid more than the PM

They arent. When you actually properly assess the PM’s package it works out at about £750k per year. You have to add in, the free houses (plural) with all the food, utilities etc paid for. All your travel, and I mean personal travel not work related. And then the kicker of £75k per year for the rest of your life, from the day you leave office.

The £148k often quoted is just the basic salary.

Im not saying whether this is reasonable or not. It just gets my goat when people claim the PM ‘only’ earns £148k.

@ratnips: TPA funding is irrelevant.

Even if it’s funded by people who don’t pay tax…NEXT!

Binners – fyi I’m not right wing.
Burnley council have rightly been applauded for their vision and commitment.
Other councils would do well to adopt such a positive approach – but too few of of them do.

Pjm – I clearly did not suggest that councils sell assets; what i said was that councils should explore any commercial opportunities they can from their assets. That may be a diffucult concept for you to understand but it is being done by some councils.

chrismac – Member 
They arent.

In basic salary comparisons, they are.

The £148k often quoted is just the basic salary.

Exactly, and some CC execs are on more than that basic salary.

Total package comparison and all the extra income and benefits the PM gets, then sure it’s another matter. Although some top CC execs have their fingers in a lot of pies also.