[Closed] Town Hall fat cats & council tax

Bear in mind those figures are renumeration packages and include pension payments, relocation allowance and redundancies and are not annual salaries as such.

See Rotten Burghers in Private Eye

@riddoch: to stick with Sunderland the costs do not include redundancy payments - redundancy applies to the job, not the person doing it so unless the council have dispensed with the roles of chief exec and finance director redundancy would not apply.
Why would the council agree to pay more that £330k in 'future' pension contributions to a departing chief exec who would, almost certainly, take up another role elsewhere
It's also worth noting that finance director was an interim and any form of redundancy payment to an interim would be questionable from a legal perspective - unless it was dressed up as an ex gratia payment but even that would need approval by the council's elected members.
Relocation expenses? A few thousands at most; Sunderland is not a high cost area there would be little if any mortgage support.

As for Rotten Boroughs in the Eye - keep up the good work chaps; for those who don't read the Eye, pop into Smiths and read the Rotten Boroughs page - published every fortnight and each edition exposes yet more that the public sector would prefer us not to know.

Bear in mind those figures are renumeration packages and include pension payments, relocation allowance and redundancies and are not annual salaries as such.

How much would you do the job for?

£60k

well there's a chief exec of a council local to me taking home 3x what the PM gets paid. do you think that's appropriate from the public purse? clearly we need the brightest and the best, but as above, when the rank and file are getting 1% over 2 years, on top of **** all for the past 10, it doesn't really seem right, does it?

No.

The brightest and the best are needed in middle management, not at the top.

Having recently left the public sector and joined a large, private sector company via a stint in the gig economy I can confirm that all three are equally incompetently managed and none of the people at the top deserve what they earn. I hope that helps.

I honestly don't think the execs at the top of councils do a good job at all. They don't understand how to use money wisely, and almost EVERY move they make is politically motivated and self serving.

What can we do as humble citizens? Pay the £400 council tax rise or else, that's what!

The execs at the top of councils are politically motivated because they work for councillors. That's the main problem with local government in my experience...

I don't work in the sector but delivered a short term contract for Northumberland County Council - and that gave me a clear insight into the disparity between those who deliver and those who claim to manage......and it stinks.

I hope you didn't charge much for your short term contract 🙂

@garym: i went through a normal interview process - unlike a mate of the chief exec who was appointed as an interim to a role which was not advertised and for which he was not interviewed.
He refused to accept any reporting relationship to his head of function - insisting that he reported only to the chief exec.
And he was expensive for what he appeared to deliver.

What can we do as humble citizens? Pay the £400 council tax rise or else, that's what!

There will be at least one of these hard working executives at a council near you; make sure you send them a congratulatory email for screwing such wonderful salaries for themselves while continuing to cut services, increase council taxes and limit pay rises for the majority of their staff to 1% at best.

Let's say you could find a senior management team that was competent and prepared to work for a much lower salary. What impact do you think that would have on the council's total budget?

well there's a chief exec of a council local to me taking home 3x what the PM gets paid. do you think that's appropriate from the public purse?

The whole comparison with the PM is almost always nonsensical. Given that the PM stuff never allows for a house in the middle of London, a weekend retreat in the country, pension benefits that one could only dream of, and contacts that will allow huge sums to be earned on leaving the post.

For the record, the council got the £300000 back, and Asons went in to recievership, to be bought by another of the Akram brothers.

I see Paul Staines (Guido Fawkes) is helping the conservatives to place the blame for reduction in services on local government and not on the reduction in funding from his friends in the government...

I imagine like every organisations there will be those under and over paid for the contribution they make.

Northern Powerhouse, innit.

Good point re private sector up there mind.

Our CEO has just retired, and excluding salary and whatever he got as a pay off and pension, he has amassed over 38 million shares in the company.

They are at £16 per share at present.

Grotesque.

This will be a mere drop in the ocean compared to all the untwinning that is to come...

Untwinning, the horror.

OP it is indeed a disgrace. The campaign group Tax Payers Alliance have been focusing on this too.

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

@garym: i went through a normal interview process - unlike a mate of the chief exec who was appointed as an interim to a role which was not advertised and for which he was not interviewed.

The old distraction technique. He didn't ask if you were interviewed or about your 'mate'.

jambalaya - Member

OP it is indeed a disgrace. The campaign group Tax Payers Alliance have been focusing on this too.

Oh right... they're a 'Campaign Group' are they? I always got the impression they were a just a bunch of typically sociopathic Tory's, perpetually whining that they have to pay any tax at all?

I mean, if we just killed the disabled (its not like they contribute anything, is it?), and left the poor to cope for themselves (it would teach them a lesson in self-sufficiency - they should be thanking us!), and as we all know if you can't afford private education and healthcare, its probably Gods way of telling you you don't deserve it. Like natural selection.

And infrastructure just magically builds and maintains itself. Obvs!

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

But I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you also think its absolutely fine that the CEO of a private company, even one who is ****ing hopeless, is paid the same annually as the GDP of Spain?

jambalaya - Member
OP it is indeed a disgrace. The campaign group Tax Payers Alliance have been focusing on this too.

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

Okay, but why not extend that to there being no reason [i]anybody [/i]is paid more than the PM?

Surrey CC top exec team likewise £1m.

Top Chief Executive guy David McNulty, £220,295

Yes that's salary + allowances. That wouldn't include pension and redundancy payoff figures.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/seven-surrey-county-council-bosses-12495399

Also read he's due a £100k bonus on top.

Not sure what the leader David Hodge (of the 15% tax rise fame) is on. Can't find figures at the moment for that, though he has a £40k allowance on top apparently.

Surrey CC County Hall isn't even in Surrey administrative area, it's in London. Explains why they haven't a clue about what goes on in the county they administer.

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

The PM's salary is meaningless.

A lot of them were wealthy before taking office and their earning capacity after holding the office, even if they do a completely shit job, is massive. Even their pension provision is nonsense compared to what they earn after leaving. You could do the job for 4 years on minimum wage and still be multi millionaires a few years after.

@retro the PM is the top public servant with the most responsible job - that should be the too paying job. As a matter of fact I think the ON should be paid more but no civil servant should make more

"Surrey CC top exec team likewise £1m.
Top Chief Executive guy David McNulty, £220,295"

Am I alone in thinking that's not high? You'd have to pay an Engineer half that in my industry.

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

Totally disagree, I want to right folk for the job. I do realise that just 'cos there's good money it doesn't mean that you'll get a good person, but that's the same for anywhere).

I also thought you believed in 'market' forces?

And does your sentiment also apply to such as when the banks were supported by the taxpayer - would have been a fair few upset employees/Managers/Directors I reckon.

The problem with many in public service is they don't understand the difference between having a big budget and running a business of the same size. I meet people who think that because they run a big team and budget, it somehow means they think they could run a similar-sized business. There's no accountability either - cock-up in public service and they'll shuffle you off to another department where you can continue to accrue a healthy pension at the tax-payers expense. The 'peter principle' still applies in the Civil Service and where prevarication and not making a decision (under the euphemism or not spending money)is simply kicking the can down the road...

Town Cat?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/791058/Council-cat-Tewkesbury-Town-Council-Gloucestershire

And does your sentiment also apply to such as when the banks were supported by the taxpayer - would have been a fair few upset employees/Managers/Directors I reckon

Plus what about all those companies which make a good part of their living from public contracts. Should we be restricting the likes of crapita.

matt_outandabout - Member 
Town Cat?
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/791058/Council-cat-Tewkesbury-Town-Council-Gloucestershire

"An office is somewhere for business to be transacted and we don't need a cat around
Karen Brennan"

Says the mayor who looks like is wearing cat fur anyway.

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

Just in case we forget - just as she already has, the PM is our servant. She is meant to work for us.

The right wing press loves to trot out stories about public sector 'fat cat' pay when people start to question why their council tax bills have increased.

Funny how they neglect to mention the effect of cuts from central government funding, isn't it? It's also funny how they never mention the public money spent on corporate welfare...

Del - Member

well there's a chief exec of a council local to me taking home 3x what the PM gets paid. do you think that's appropriate from the public purse?

It's a bit of a false comparison; an ex-PM has huge earning potential, and there's a lot of non-financial perks. Not to mention that they're all power-seeing mentalists, being top of the pile is its own reward.

Not that I'm saying the payment is right; I'm not sure either way. But it's definitely just a distraction tactic from the real impacts on council services and spending. A lot of people would be very happy to have us believe that the reason your library just closed is because of fat-cat public servants being paid a fortune.

A lot of people would be very happy to have us believe that the reason your library just closed is because of fat-cat public servants being paid a fortune.

Yep. This.

Also, if everyone paid their dues to the state correctly then we could all have access to libraries, social care and reasonable housing too. Those who continue to repeat the notion that we must slash public spending and force those on low incomes to fund their own healthcare, unemployment insurance, education and whatnot are fast running out of scapegoats.

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. [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/news/burnley-named-most-enterprising-place-in-britain ]It was hugely successful[/url].

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...

[img] [/img]

"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.

[img] [/img]

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.