Living off the fat of the land. - Page 16

g jones · 05-02-2009, 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I see. Yet when Councillor Britcliffe voted for this, you said in the Observer,
"He's got no extra responsibility because he is doing what he did before, so what is the money for?"

Did you actually vote for this? In 2007 the Independent Remuneration Panel review said that second allowances should not be allowed. During a vote you put down an amendment,

Your amendment would have ensured that no second allowances could be taken. It was defeated, and you now take a second allowance. Are we to believe that you put down an amendment, but then voted against it? Hypocrisy.

Labour Councillors voted against the two allowances. However following that Labour Councillors agreed that Planning was onurus and put in £750.

I am more interested in making the Borough great. The Tories andrew want to line their pockets. I am not outraged, just disapponted now. Maybe the years of Tory greed and winning elections has dulled my resistance. I object to two allowances when it is being abused. Eg big allowances child care and travel. Planning £750 as a second allowance is atrivial matter THAT I VOTED FOR andrew. I wasn't even going on planning until a secret phone call was leaked to the Tories and instead of having 3 on planning we have 5 and I've had to find time to do the job.

So lining my own pockets no. Hypocrite no. The irony is Andrew is you voted for me to have them. And now your complaining. If we can have 2 separate policies on every issue then I have a bunch that would take us from being a poor Tory Council to agreat Labour one.

PS watch out for another whopping Tory 5% Council Tax rise. At least this thread demonstrates where its being spent and £100k in the back pockets of Landlords as well.

Posted via Mobile Device

garinda · 05-02-2009, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

PS watch out for another whopping Tory 5% Council Tax rise. At least this thread demonstrates where its being spent and £100k in the back pockets of Landlords as well.

That's quite a carrot to dangle before us.

Will we, the poor general public, get to hear more about this?

jaysay · 05-02-2009, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

Labour Councillors voted against the two allowances. However following that Labour Councillors agreed that Planning was onurus and put in £750.

I am more interested in making the Borough great. The Tories andrew want to line their pockets. I am not outraged, just disapponted now. Maybe the years of Tory greed and winning elections has dulled my resistance. I object to two allowances when it is being abused. Eg big allowances child care and travel. Planning £750 as a second allowance is atrivial matter THAT I VOTED FOR andrew. I wasn't even going on planning until a secret phone call was leaked to the Tories and instead of having 3 on planning we have 5 and I've had to find time to do the job.

So lining my own pockets no. Hypocrite no. The irony is Andrew is you voted for me to have them. And now your complaining. If we can have 2 separate policies on every issue then I have a bunch that would take us from being a poor Tory Council to a great Labour one.

PS watch out for another whopping Tory 5% Council Tax rise. At least this thread demonstrates where its being spent and £100k in the back pockets of Landlords as well.

Posted via Mobile Device

Great and Labour in he same sentence, your having a laugh

lancsdave · 05-02-2009, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

PS watch out for another whopping Tory 5% Council Tax rise. At least this thread demonstrates where its being spent and £100k in the back pockets of Landlords as well.

Posted via Mobile Device

Will that be to pay for the council offices to be open when they should be between Christmas & New Year ?

Neil · 05-02-2009, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

PS watch out for another whopping Tory 5% Council Tax rise. At least this thread demonstrates where its being spent and £100k in the back pockets of Landlords as well.

The Observer quotes 3.6%, are they wrong?

jaysay · 05-02-2009, 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

The Observer quotes 3.6%, are they wrong?

Off course they are Neil the great I'm that is Graham Jones is never wrong, the last time some one professed that, they nailed him to a cross 2000 years ago

Neil · 05-02-2009, 17:00

that is a bit extreme. Anyway graham is not perfect, he puts black current in his cider
Posted via Mobile Device

andrewb · 05-02-2009, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

Labour Councillors voted against the two allowances. However following that Labour Councillors agreed that Planning was onurus and put in £750.

The Tories andrew want to line their pockets.

Planning £750 as a second allowance is atrivial matter THAT I VOTED FOR andrew.

I see, so when the Conservatives vote for increases they're lining their pockets, but when Labour do, its okay. Right.

Quote:

The irony is Andrew is you voted for me to have them.

No I don't think I did vote for you to have them. I'm not a councillor.

Quote:

Planning £750 as a second allowance is atrivial matter

£750 paid to each individual with two positions on planning committee. That's trivial. When the council send out calendars with councillors details on, and when councillors vote for a rise in expenses, similar to trade union levels, that's not trivial to you. You make a big song and dance about it because you know you can make the nasty tories look bad.

You can't preach to be the whiter than white party if you're not.

garinda · 05-02-2009, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Off course they are Neil the great I'm that is Graham Jones is never wrong, the last time some one professed that, they nailed him to a cross 2000 years ago

Well it can happen to the best of you.

The Editor accuses you of being wrong, in reponse to your letter accusing the paper of not saying the recent councillor's allowances were a maximum level, when they quite clearly did state the fact, as the Editor points out very succinctly in this weekend's Observer.

I nearly choked on my bun, because of the laugh it produced whilst I was eating it.

g jones · 05-02-2009, 17:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Off course they are Neil the great I'm that is Graham Jones is never wrong, the last time some one professed that, they nailed him to a cross 2000 years ago

Another Tory trick. sorry this refers to 3.6% figure above.

LCC are putting up Council Tax 2.9% (whatever it is) and that's 72% of all council tax. The local Tories are burying their 5% by producing an average figure. Every year they do this unless its the other way around the they scream incompetence at County hall.

The problem is Jaysay, the more I tell the truth the more you don't lime it and NEED to pull me down. The fact is Labour have been kicked off 4 committees so the truth can't be told so easily.

More scandous is Labours proposal to stop council tax relief on long term epmties which would save £100k of tax payers money. What did our local Tories do. Shout it down saying it was a crackpot policy, then voted to end the debate before it started, then tory landlords refused to declare and interest and went on to vote it down. There presence didn't matter becAuse the double dealing indepnedents have already sold their votes for favours to the controlling Tories.

A rotten borough when you find out the truth.

Posted via Mobile Device

Neil · 05-02-2009, 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

More scandous is Labours proposal to stop council tax relief on long term epmties which would save £100 of tax payers money. What did our local Tories do. Shout it down saying it was a crackpot policy, then voted to end the debate before it started, then tory landlords refused to declare and interest and went on to vote it down. There presence didn't matter because the double dealing independents have already sold their votes for favours to the controlling Tories.

The way the debate and vote went does sound a bit iffy.
So by empties do you mean empty properties full stop or just ones up for rent?
I am not sure what I think about paying council tax on empty houses. After all an empty house is not using many of the council services. Maybe they should pay a reduced rate while empty. Trouble is you would get all the fraudulent empty claims so might be easier to just charge for empty houses. I wonder who would pay if a house had been repossessed?

So what favours are the double dealing independents after?

g jones · 05-02-2009, 18:03

You amaze me andrew with your spin. Labour councillors vote for £750 for planning. That is not lining your pockets. Tories votes for £5000-£20000 increases on one vote and milk other allowances. That is lining your pocket.

Yes you did vote for it. Your party believes in high council expenses and you voted for that. As PB says we won the election people voted for our policies not yours. So your leader attributes responsibility to you andrew as well.

Ps this borough can be a much better. We need more democracy that's all.

Posted via Mobile Device

garinda · 05-02-2009, 18:04

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

Don't tell me they did succeed in changing the name of the borough after all, whilst I wasn't looking?

Neil · 05-02-2009, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

Don't tell me they did succeed in changing the name of the borough after all, whilst I wasn't looking?

Are you drinking home made tea leaf wine again or something because that post confused my little overworked brain?

garinda · 05-02-2009, 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

Are you drinking home made tea leaf wine again or something because that post confused my little overworked brain?

Sorry for confusing your little brain.

I forget you only went to CRGS, and literary jokes, bringing together two issues, the council's allowances/budgets, and last year's brainwave of wasting more money on an unnecessary name change for the borough, was rather neatly brought together, in my opinion.