Let's have a little discussion as to why any allowance or salary is set at a certain level. The whole idea is to attract the most suitable people for the job. If lots of people can do it and it's fairly mundane, salaries tend to be low. If it requires a high level of unique talent or it is a job not many people could do or would want to do, then it tends to have a high salary. Generally salaries are reassessed when organisations are looking for fresh talent. If they have had trouble attracting the right quality of people, then you up the salary. If there are a surplus of people who want to do the job, maybe you are paying too much.
Now the argument that the Tories in Barnet are using to justify the salary is, well "because they are worth it". Now if 18 months ago they'd said "We've had to put up with a completely useless idiot of a leader who lost £27.4 million in Icelandic banks (Mike Freer), another idiot of a deputy Leader who overspent £11 millon on a budget of £12 million at Aerodrome Road (Matthew Offord) and we've got a cabinet member for Social Services who has lead us on a disasterous policy of abolishing Sheltered Housing wardens which has lead us into a court case which we've lost (Lynne Hillan), they might have got some agreement from me. If they'd have said that the Barnet Tory Party was full of useless placemen and they were throwing the selection process for new councillors completely open to all with the promise of 100% pay rises if they won (as part of their manifesto) justified by the need to replace the likes of the failed team, I wouldn't have disagreed when they implemented the policy. There would have been a justification and a popular mandate for change.
But the truth is that is the opposite of what they did. They hid the fact from the electorate that their first major action would be to award themselves huge pay rises. They didn't sack the failed old guard and try and recruit fresh blood. The only Tory councillors who were replaced were those who lost their seats, those who had legged it abroad, those who had fallen foul of the regime and been shafted and those who left to become MP's. The replacements were specially selected lackies such as Barry Evangeli, who had dedicated his time to writing letters to the press saying that Brian Coleman is marvellous.
It is quite clear that there is a large surpless of Tory Councillors who would love to become cabinet members at the old rate of allowance. The Council Leader, Lynne Hillan fought like a polecat on heat to get the leadership, at the old rate. If she stepped down tomorrow, I know of at least three Councillors who would immediately snap up the job regardless of whether it was at the old rate or new. The whole grubby saga sums up the way allowances are paid in Barnet. They are not used to attract new talent, they are used to stifle competition and bludgeon Councillors into supporting the morally bankrupt policy of the leaders.
They used a three line whip on Councillors to ensure that they voted for the payrise and the one Councillor with the guts to say no, Kate Salinger was ritually humiliated in a public council meeting.
So if you voted Conservative in the elections in May tell me this. Did you vote Tory because you wanted an administration that behaves in this way? Do you think that it is acceptable for politicians to hush up a huge payrise until immediately after an election and then bludgeon it through, at the same meeting where they said everyone else would suffer from cuts.
In Mill Hill, where I live, we elected two new Tories to join John Hart. There names are Sury Khatri and Brian Schama. They've been councillors for nearly three months now and I only know of one thing they've done. They voted for this big payrise for their political bosses. Do you know who your Tory Councillors are? Do you know of anything useful theyv'e done since being elected? Unless there name is Salinger, they voted for the rise. Is that why you voted for them (if you voted Tory)?
I received an email yesterday from the Hendon Times. They have reported that they've had an overwhelming response to their petition against the rise. If the Barnet Tories think this is going away any time soon, they can add deluded to their list of faults.
3 comments:
When Ms Hillan dies her political death, all that will apparently happen is that Messrs. Harper and Coleman will scramble to replace her.
How grim is that.
I see the council has two weeks to reply to the GMB lawyers, regarding possible legal action over the huge pay rises. That could be an interesting reply - I hope that union publishs it in full!
Rog: I was at last night's Finchley and Golders Green Residents' Forum (see my blog for report)and - believe it or not - the only Tory who showed up, Graham Old, was somehow moved to describe Kate Salinger as 'a great heroine'! What a shame he and his colleagues failed to support her act of heroism on the night of the notorious council meeting, eh? What's going on? Are the poor horse whipped councillors suffering post traumatic stress syndrome, or are they just feeling guilty?
I'm glad the Times has caught up the Press, with their petition activity.
The Press was far ahead of the Times in reporting the story the previous week.
Why does the Press get all the Barnet Council advertising, and the Times gets none, by the way?
Post a Comment