Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs?

Glass House Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 01:54:04 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6179334.stm

The Mail and BBC are reporting a 'new Labour funding scandal'. Councillors have to pay some of their allowances to the Party.

Yes...and?

As party members, we all have to pay some of our income to the party. Councillors have to pay a little bit more - and their income is made up, in part, by their allowance.

How is this even a story? The money BELONGS to the Councillors!

Am I missing something?




New funding scandal not really all that scandalous!

tags: , , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? | 15 comments (15 topical)

Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#1)

by doctordunc on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 02:27:36 PM GMT

No, I'm not sure it's so very scandalous.  It's rather more complex than either the BBC article or your quick summary suggest; the Party point out that the money's coming from Councillor's personal bank accounts rather than direct from the council, but the fact that it's levvied as a percentage of the allowance rather than a fixed rate makes that sound a bit semantically precious.

It depends really on what you see the allowance as being; is it effectively a second salary - in which case, you're absolutely right - a charge for continuing to be a party member is no different from membership fees, etc. - or is it the council paying for amateur politicians' expenses, in which case one could argue that contributing to party funds is not reasonably to be seen as an expense of the council.

However, nobody's going to complain if a Councillor spends it on chips.

In the end, the point of issue rests on it being a percentage of the allowance.


Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#7)

by liz on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 11:36:53 AM GMT

The reporting of this in the Mail is dreadful!  (I looked at their coverage online).  I think councillors now receive a salary (fixed with additional monies for responsibilities etc) rather than an allowance as they are able to join local authority pension schemes. I thought one had to be an employee to join this scheme?

My professional organisation fixed contributions to practice based on a percentage of salary.  I considered this fair.

If Councillors are unhappy about the levy then they can of course stand as Independents and pay for their own campaigns.


[ Parent ]

Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#8)

by doctordunc on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 01:47:44 PM GMT


Hi Liz - yes, they do appear to have used 'allowance' and 'salary' pretty interchangeably.  And it is a rather important distinction.

Anyway - I agree: it's not a pre-condition of being a councillor, just a pre-condition of being a Labour councillor, and I don't really understand the fuss.


[ Parent ]

Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#9)

by liz on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 04:46:10 PM GMT

DoctorDunc - thank you.  I was so horrified at the press reporting that I looked up the relevant legislation - LA Members Allowances England Reg 2003.  The regulations state specifically that all will be treated as employees - liable to tax, national insurance etc.  It also states that they must have the freedom to spend that money as they see fit.

I also looked up the remuneration locally.  The Council leader in this County received £31000 in 2005, with Chairs of Committees receiving £22000 and so on.  Very few received the basic allowance which the Councillor in Sunderland is reported to have claimed.  He used the argument that it was unfair that he had to contribute 3% to the party when the money was limited and needed by him to represent his constituents.

I cannot find out about other parties.  However, the Romford Conservative Association apparently wanted 10% from their representative for the party (locally/nationally?). He resigned and stood as an Independent.  


[ Parent ]

Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#13)

by Anonymous on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 12:58:19 PM GMT

Strange how Labour supporters can't see anything wrong with it when it's their own councillors.  In Islington South, this was one of the planks for their attack on the Lib Dem candidate (a serving Islington councillor) who was using part of the allowance to support party funds.  That attack was probably worth the 500 votes which made up Emily Thornberry's wafer thin majority.  Let's have some consistency.


[ Parent ]

Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#2)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 04:01:46 PM GMT

Nope, you are missing nothing, I don't see how anybody can take offence at this.


Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#3)

by swatantra on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 04:13:00 PM GMT

As usual the Media are stirring again. Most Labour councillors are quite happy to contribute a percentage of their allowance to Party Funds.
Its no big deal. We do it quite voluntarily.


[ Parent ]

Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#15)

by Curkal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:56:42 PM GMT

Isn't the issue (if one accepts that there is one), and thus the point, that it isn't voluntary because it's a policy set at conference?


[ Parent ]

Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#4)

by Glass House on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 04:19:17 PM GMT

Are other parties' Councillors obliged to give more than their membership fee to the party?

Surely this can't just be a Labour thing?


Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#5)

by alexhilton on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 12:59:06 AM GMT

I was a councillor for four years and paid my Association of Labour Councillors subs (£25 per year) and my Redbridge Labour Group subs (£35 per year?). I remember my first Labour Group meeting. The Council was deciding to raise backbench Councillors' "salaries" from £6k to £9k. When I suggested we raise the Labour Group subs to £50 per month to spend on local campaigning, some of my colleagues got very loud.


Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#6)

by alexhilton on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 01:01:35 AM GMT

incidentally, did some BBC staffer get a £100 quid bonus for breaking that story?


Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#11)

by MM on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 06:27:33 PM GMT

The BBC's Director of News defends the internal e-mail about the bonus payment:

'Bonus Controversy':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/11/bonus_controversy.html#commentsanchor

No mention of this story on Newsnight or the Ten O'Clock News.


[ Parent ]

Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#10)

by MM on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 06:22:18 PM GMT

It's a total non-story I saw the coverage on Newsnight yesterday and I thought Sir Jeremy Beecham made both Kirsty Wark and the Tory representative look very foolish.

The problem is the story is a little complex and like so many issues in British politics once it gets complicated the media get bored and do'nt wish to explain or inform.


Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#12)

by SW on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 11:36:04 AM GMT

Media boredom with complexity - a fact for which we should actually be grateful occasionally. Another version is the way that the media cannot distinguish between high numbers - is £200,000, £2 million or £20 million the right amount to spend on X initiative; they report them exactly the same as long as a number sounds high.


[ Parent ]

Re: Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? (#14)

by Mark Wadsworth on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:47:36 PM GMT

Good point.

Every citizen should be sent a little leaflet once a year showing total GDP (£1.4 trn) total population (60m), GDP per head (a bit over £20k) total tax revenues (£500bn odd) and total government spending per capita (£9,000-odd) and government borrowing above and beyond tax revenues(£40bn odd) just to put all these silly little millions and tens of millions into perspective.


[ Parent ]

Am I missing something - Councillors and Subs? | 15 comments (15 topical)