Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ 16.5% increase to WBC councillor basic allowance
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 13 2015, 05:07 PM
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/14518/West-Berks-councillors-up-for-16.html that a recommendation to increase the WBC councillor allowance by 16.5% is to be voted on next week.
The current basic allowance is £6,285 and the proposal is to increase that to £7,324, with an additional cost to the tax-payer of £54k. That's offset a little by the abolition of a £200 broadband allowance and a £200 IT consumables allowance, but as only one in four councillors claim that it's not a big saving.
That does seem to be an excessively generous increase for a job that, in my view, should be done without reward for the public benefit. I accept that an allowance to cover necessary expenses is appropriate, but at a guess I'd have thought a tenth of that allowance was adequate.
Posted by: Cognosco May 13 2015, 05:19 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 13 2015, 06:07 PM) 
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/14518/West-Berks-councillors-up-for-16.html that a recommendation to increase the WBC councillor allowance by 16.5% is to be voted on next week.
The current basic allowance is £6,285 and the proposal is to increase that to £7,324, with an additional cost to the tax-payer of £54k. That's offset a little by the abolition of a £200 broadband allowance and a £200 IT consumables allowance, but as only one in four councillors claim that it's not a big saving.
That does seem to be an excessively generous increase for a job that, in my view, should be done without reward for the public benefit. I accept that an allowance to cover necessary expenses is appropriate, but at a guess I'd have thought a tenth of that allowance was adequate.
The current basic allowance is £6,285 and the proposal is to increase that to £7,324, with an additional cost to the tax-payer of £54k. That's offset a little by the abolition of a £200 broadband allowance and a £200 IT consumables allowance, but as only one in four councillors claim that it's not a big saving.
That does seem to be an excessively generous increase for a job that, in my view, should be done without reward for the public benefit. I accept that an allowance to cover necessary expenses is appropriate, but at a guess I'd have thought a tenth of that allowance was adequate.
Remember "We are all in it together"
Posted by: Exhausted May 13 2015, 05:27 PM
How do they arrive at that sort of percentage.
I can understand UNISON being a bit miffed as their members at the council have been pushed hard with the austerity measures which have been approved by the elected councillors and no doubt will be looking to this as a precedent.
The councillors might do the decent thing and vote against the proposals, who knows, but I just saw a pig flying by.
Posted by: CharlieF May 13 2015, 06:00 PM
There's a http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/documents/s40259/12.IRP%20Report%20-%20Appendix%201.pdf that explains the rationale. And if I may can I draw your attention to section 8.6.
QUOTE
8.6 A number of Members highlighted the difficulty that the political groups have in
recruiting new Councillors, particularly with reference to the time commitment
required and the relatively low level of remuneration. The Panel noted that in order
to attract candidates from more diverse backgrounds, as well as young employed
professionals, it is necessary to attempt to mitigate some of the factors that may
dissuade some people from standing for election.
recruiting new Councillors, particularly with reference to the time commitment
required and the relatively low level of remuneration. The Panel noted that in order
to attract candidates from more diverse backgrounds, as well as young employed
professionals, it is necessary to attempt to mitigate some of the factors that may
dissuade some people from standing for election.
May I now draw your attention to Dave Yates' letter to the Newbury Weekly News of 23rd April 2015.
QUOTE
PARTY POLITICS IS RUINING OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
I have for many years now, witnessed the process leading up to the Local Elections, where the two main parties on West Berkshire Council run around cajoling, pleading and sometimes bullying people into standing as candidates for the 52 seats on the District Council. Each side sees that the inability to field a full complement of candidates would be seized upon by the other as a weakness, a lack of support.
Agents and activists from both sides spend the final weeks running up to the deadline for nominations, pleading with reluctant potentials to allow their names to be put forward, sometimes to the point of promising that there is no chance of them being elected.
Once campaigning starts proper, the goal posts are moved, and these seats are actively targeted on behalf of a person who doesn’t want to win. Reason? To remove the big guns from the opposing benches.
Party HQ in London sends a celebrity big name MP, to come and be seen by the electorate as they flood the ward weekend after weekend with activists. Their intention is to oust the better person.
This process drives down the quality of our representation within the Council Chamber. Someone who may have devoted years to the community they represent, is replaced by someone, who is at best, a reluctant participant. This is beneficial to the Parties, as it leaves the Council Chamber full of yes men, half of whom couldn’t be trusted to sit the right way on a toilet seat, and the ruling executive can implement at will, directives sent down from their party masters in Whitehall. At which point Party Politics in Local Government becomes less about good governance than about control, and ultimately about power.
The promotion of Party Politics in local government is the worst expression of tribalism after racism.
Yours faithfully,
David Yates
I have for many years now, witnessed the process leading up to the Local Elections, where the two main parties on West Berkshire Council run around cajoling, pleading and sometimes bullying people into standing as candidates for the 52 seats on the District Council. Each side sees that the inability to field a full complement of candidates would be seized upon by the other as a weakness, a lack of support.
Agents and activists from both sides spend the final weeks running up to the deadline for nominations, pleading with reluctant potentials to allow their names to be put forward, sometimes to the point of promising that there is no chance of them being elected.
Once campaigning starts proper, the goal posts are moved, and these seats are actively targeted on behalf of a person who doesn’t want to win. Reason? To remove the big guns from the opposing benches.
Party HQ in London sends a celebrity big name MP, to come and be seen by the electorate as they flood the ward weekend after weekend with activists. Their intention is to oust the better person.
This process drives down the quality of our representation within the Council Chamber. Someone who may have devoted years to the community they represent, is replaced by someone, who is at best, a reluctant participant. This is beneficial to the Parties, as it leaves the Council Chamber full of yes men, half of whom couldn’t be trusted to sit the right way on a toilet seat, and the ruling executive can implement at will, directives sent down from their party masters in Whitehall. At which point Party Politics in Local Government becomes less about good governance than about control, and ultimately about power.
The promotion of Party Politics in local government is the worst expression of tribalism after racism.
Yours faithfully,
David Yates
Ain't that the truth!
Posted by: blackdog May 13 2015, 06:26 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 13 2015, 06:07 PM)
That does seem to be an excessively generous increase for a job that, in my view, should be done without reward for the public benefit. I accept that an allowance to cover necessary expenses is appropriate, but at a guess I'd have thought a tenth of that allowance was adequate.
Aren't expenses on top of the allowance?
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 13 2015, 07:37 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 13 2015, 07:26 PM)
Aren't expenses on top of the allowance?
I wasn't aware of that. So the allowance is literally a payment just for being a councillor? Good grief.
Posted by: On the edge May 13 2015, 08:10 PM
They just don't get it do they! What an insult and skip in the face for the new councillors where it is implied that they apparently needed financial incentives before they'd even agree to stand. If that's what they think of their own prospective support, just think what they think of us.
Posted by: blackdog May 13 2015, 08:53 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 13 2015, 08:37 PM)
I wasn't aware of that. So the allowance is literally a payment just for being a councillor? Good grief.
And extra for being on the Executive, even more for being top dog.
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 13 2015, 09:00 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 13 2015, 09:53 PM)
And extra for being on the Executive, even more for being top dog.
I'm more easily convinced that remuneration for leader and executive is appropriate because at WBC that is starting to look like a professional role. I'm not terribly happy with the executive model and I prefer the old collective model where all councillors are really just enthusiastic amateurs advised by professional officers, but setting aside any objecting to the model itself it's difficult to deny that the Executive is more than that. But for rank-and-file I see their role akin to volunteers for the CAB, and I'm not yet convinced that remuneration is appropriate.
Posted by: CrackerJack May 13 2015, 10:35 PM
"Can you lot sharrup..??!! We're trying to concentrate on filling our expenses forms in...."
To say this will not go down well with 'the electorate' would be an understatement.....
Posted by: Cognosco May 14 2015, 06:36 AM
QUOTE (CrackerJack @ May 13 2015, 11:35 PM)
"Can you lot sharrup..??!! We're trying to concentrate on filling our expenses forms in...."
To say this will not go down well with 'the electorate' would be an understatement.....
To say this will not go down well with 'the electorate' would be an understatement.....
Well it must be ok with the electorate.........rather a lot of them have just re-elected them even though they have had plenty of signs given that things were not going too well to say the least? "You have made your bed now you must lay on it"! 😉
Posted by: On the edge May 14 2015, 06:57 AM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 14 2015, 07:36 AM)
Well it must be ok with the electorate.........rather a lot of them have just re-elected them even though they have had plenty of signs given that things were not going too well to say the least? "You have made your bed now you must lay on it"! 😉
Great observation Cognosco! ...and there's more! I wonder just how many new NTC Councillors realised they'd get a walk on part in a street theatre production and a free goodies bag just for turning up at the first meeting.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 14 2015, 12:09 PM
I think if they are to be paid to do the job, they should have a councilor's KPI published.
Posted by: Exhausted May 14 2015, 05:12 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 13 2015, 08:37 PM)
I wasn't aware of that. So the allowance is literally a payment just for being a councillor? Good grief.
The full story.....
http://info.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=36842&p=0
That was for the year just ended. Gives you a feeling for what their income can be racked up to. Some of the mileage allowances and in some instances taxi fares are a bit excessive perhaps.
Interesting to compare the attendance record of councillors from November to todays date...
http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgUserAttendanceSummary.aspx
Pamela Bale Expected 16 actual 5
Hilary Cole Expected 16 Actual 16
Billy Drummond Expected 4 Actual 2
Joe Mooney Expected 1 Actual 0
Julian Swift Hook Expected 10 Actual 7
The previous tables available on the website but I do remember Joe Mooney as one of the worst.
Posted by: blackdog May 14 2015, 05:17 PM
I see that they are cutting costs in one area - by reducing the allowance paid to the leader of the opposition party!
Posted by: Cognosco May 14 2015, 08:18 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 14 2015, 06:17 PM)
I see that they are cutting costs in one area - by reducing the allowance paid to the leader of the opposition party!
What opposition party? That is in name only, it would appear they are all tarred with the same brush and belong to the same club...............talk about charades?
Posted by: Strafin May 21 2015, 05:59 PM
Surprise everyone, it went through! I don't a know how anybody voted though, I would be interested to find out.
Posted by: MontyPython May 21 2015, 06:41 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ May 21 2015, 06:59 PM)
Surprise everyone, it went through! I don't a know how anybody voted though, I would be interested to find out.
I wonder how they would have voted prior to the election if the also new that their vote would be published!
Posted by: Andy Capp May 21 2015, 09:24 PM
Tories said aye, yum, yum, and Lib Dems said nay, we couldn't possibly justify it! *Burp*
Posted by: NWNREADER May 23 2015, 07:50 PM
Not just WBC.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-32842575
Posted by: blackdog May 23 2015, 08:12 PM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 23 2015, 08:50 PM)
Not just WBC.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-32842575
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-32842575
Massive hike percentagewise - but they are still getting less than WBC councillors got before this month's pay rise!
Posted by: Exhausted May 24 2015, 07:45 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 23 2015, 09:12 PM)
Massive hike percentagewise - but they are still getting less than WBC councillors got before this month's pay rise!
One of the reasons why South Oxford felt it was Ok to give the increase to their councillors was because they actually reduced the number of councillors prior to a potential amalgamation with another council.
Bear in mind that we haven't reduced our potentially bloated council even though there has been pressure to reduce the number of council officers. As blackdog says, there is a fairly large discrepancy between the two district councillors allowances.
WBC was £6149 and increased to £7,324
S. Oxf was £2909 and increased to £4575.
There are special allowances for portfolio holders in both councils but the disparity remains.
Of course, the two councils are dissimilar in budget and size. I haven't checked how far.
Posted by: user23 May 24 2015, 08:01 PM
Don't forget, in South Oxfordshire you also have https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/oxfordshire-councillor-allowances too.
Posted by: Exhausted May 24 2015, 08:37 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 24 2015, 09:01 PM)
Don't forget, in South Oxfordshire you also have https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/oxfordshire-councillor-allowances too.
You might have to explain that one to me. How can they serve on two councils?
Posted by: On the edge May 24 2015, 09:04 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 24 2015, 09:01 PM)
Don't forget, in South Oxfordshire you also have https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/oxfordshire-councillor-allowances too.
Umm a bit like us then, WBC pretending to be a County Council and Newbury Town pretending to be a Borough. All part of our 'let's pretend' democracy.
Posted by: user23 May 24 2015, 09:07 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 24 2015, 10:04 PM)
Umm a bit like us then, WBC pretending to be a County Council and Newbury Town pretending to be a Borough. All part of our 'let's pretend' democracy.
Not really, because there's also another level in Oxfordshire, for example http://www.didcot.gov.uk/Didcot-Town-Council.aspx which is equivalent to Newbury Town Council.
Posted by: On the edge May 24 2015, 09:12 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 24 2015, 10:07 PM)
Not really, because there's also another level in Oxfordshire, for example http://www.didcot.gov.uk/Didcot-Town-Council.aspx which is equivalent to Newbury Town Council.
Ah, but that pretends to be a residents association. Remember, we still have a 'ceremonial' Royal County of Berkshire (bet that doesn't come gratis!) so it ain't dead yet.
Berkshire Authorities Joint Planning Strategic Unit not closed down yet by any chance?
Posted by: user23 May 24 2015, 09:28 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 24 2015, 10:12 PM)
Ah, but that pretends to be a residents association. Remember, we still have a 'ceremonial' Royal County of Berkshire (bet that doesn't come gratis!) so it ain't dead yet.
Yes, and there's a https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/lord-lieutenant too, similar to that in Berkshire.There are no Berkshire County councillors similar to Oxfordshire though.
West Berkshire councillors perform the roles of both the separate District and County that they have north of the border.
Any comparison with a District, needs to consider the County too.
Posted by: On the edge May 25 2015, 06:46 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 24 2015, 10:28 PM)
Yes, and there's a https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/lord-lieutenant too, similar to that in Berkshire.
There are no Berkshire County councillors similar to Oxfordshire though.
West Berkshire councillors perform the roles of both the separate District and County that they have north of the border.
Any comparison with a District, needs to consider the County too.
There are no Berkshire County councillors similar to Oxfordshire though.
West Berkshire councillors perform the roles of both the separate District and County that they have north of the border.
Any comparison with a District, needs to consider the County too.
If only they did! That's just the point, the former County functions are either still there as a joint operation (such as the Strategic Planning Unit) acting as a local quango, or dispensed stand alone agencies like the Fire and Rescue service. As for schools, most are now self managed.
Arguably, much the same has happened at the other levels - most of the functions hived off. So in effect, we are paying far more to Councillors who are doing far less.
Posted by: user23 May 25 2015, 09:20 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 25 2015, 07:46 AM)
If only they did! That's just the point, the former County functions are either still there as a joint operation (such as the Strategic Planning Unit) acting as a local quango, or dispensed stand alone agencies like the Fire and Rescue service. As for schools, most are now self managed.
Arguably, much the same has happened at the other levels - most of the functions hived off. So in effect, we are paying far more to Councillors who are doing far less.
Great example. Most planning decisions in South Oxfordshire are made by South Oxfordshire District councillors, decisions on schools by Oxfordshire County councillors. Arguably, much the same has happened at the other levels - most of the functions hived off. So in effect, we are paying far more to Councillors who are doing far less.
In West Berkshire, West Berkshire councillors do both. You can https://www.gov.uk/understand-how-your-council-works/types-of-council.
Most schools in West Berkshire (around 90%) are still run by the council, by the way. Looking on the council website, http://info.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30347.
Posted by: blackdog May 25 2015, 09:39 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 25 2015, 10:20 AM)
Great example. Most planning decisions in South Oxfordshire are made by South Oxfordshire District councillors, decisions on schools by Oxfordshire County councillors.
In West Berkshire, West Berkshire councillors do both. You can https://www.gov.uk/understand-how-your-council-works/types-of-council.
Most schools in West Berkshire (around 90%) are still run by the council, by the way. Looking on the council website, http://info.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30347.
In West Berkshire, West Berkshire councillors do both. You can https://www.gov.uk/understand-how-your-council-works/types-of-council.
Most schools in West Berkshire (around 90%) are still run by the council, by the way. Looking on the council website, http://info.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30347.
In West Berkshire most planning decisions are made by council officers, most strategic decisions are rubber stamped by executive members - the majority of councillors have no more to do than a South Oxon councillor.
Posted by: Sherlock Jun 3 2015, 09:01 AM
Well the good news is that, when (as per WBC's draft strategic plan) many services are handed over to volunteers/community organisations, outsourced to Capita and the like or to not-for-profits (like BBOWT managing Greenham Common), or simply cut. there just won't be the need for so many councillors. The government will also strongly encourage more schools to become academies (or, as of today's announcement, force them to do so in the case of failing schools), further reducing the load on our hard working representatives.
We can be confident that when WBC announces its new strategic plan it will include a large reduction in the number of councillors which will offset this huge increase in allowances. An administration whose overriding aims are to slash costs, reduce the role of the state, and to hollow-out local government, could hardly do otherwise.
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 3 2015, 05:00 PM
I suspect the number of councillors is made up according to householders and perhaps area however,
Newbury has 14 councillors
Thatcham 8
Hungerford and Kintbury 4
Theale,Calcot, Burghfield and Sulhampstead 7
Birch Copse 3
Then, Lambourn Mortimer, Purley on Thames and Bucklebury have 2 each
Pangbourne, Aldermaston, Basildon, Chieveley, Downlands, Compton, Cold Ash and Westwood have 1 each.
Can you see any savings.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 3 2015, 05:30 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Jun 3 2015, 06:00 PM)
I suspect the number of councillors is made up according to householders and perhaps area however,
Newbury has 14 councillors
Thatcham 8
Hungerford and Kintbury 4
Theale,Calcot, Burghfield and Sulhampstead 7
Birch Copse 3
Then, Lambourn Mortimer, Purley on Thames and Bucklebury have 2 each
Pangbourne, Aldermaston, Basildon, Chieveley, Downlands, Compton, Cold Ash and Westwood have 1 each.
Can you see any savings.
Newbury has 14 councillors
Thatcham 8
Hungerford and Kintbury 4
Theale,Calcot, Burghfield and Sulhampstead 7
Birch Copse 3
Then, Lambourn Mortimer, Purley on Thames and Bucklebury have 2 each
Pangbourne, Aldermaston, Basildon, Chieveley, Downlands, Compton, Cold Ash and Westwood have 1 each.
Can you see any savings.
Yes, easily, simply have bigger constituencies.
The 'portfolio' system means that geographic considerations aren't taken into account anyway.
Posted by: MontyPython Jun 3 2015, 07:18 PM
QUOTE (Sherlock @ Jun 3 2015, 10:01 AM)
...
We can be confident that when WBC announces its new strategic plan it will include a large reduction in the number of councillors which will offset this huge increase in allowances. An administration whose overriding aims are to slash costs, reduce the role of the state, and to hollow-out local government, could hardly do otherwise.
We can be confident that when WBC announces its new strategic plan it will include a large reduction in the number of councillors which will offset this huge increase in allowances. An administration whose overriding aims are to slash costs, reduce the role of the state, and to hollow-out local government, could hardly do otherwise.
......and hopefully a reduction in the management layer in Market Street.
Posted by: blackdog Jun 3 2015, 07:26 PM
Increase the size of the wards to reduce the number of councillors to about 25. Select the executive and shadow executive from this plus chairs of main committees (finance, planning & scrutiny). Introduce a District Assembly made up of the district councillors plus one representative from each parish council (unpaid) to vote on the budget and major policy changes - meets quarterly. Parish council representatives can be co-opted sit on committees if necessary.
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 3 2015, 07:49 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Jun 3 2015, 06:30 PM)
Yes, easily, simply have bigger constituencies.
Why I lumped together Newbury and the same for Thatcham. Then the Theale Calcot lot. Interesting that the western villages of Kintbury and Hungerford have 4 councillors.
Poor old Pangbourne Pam serves on her own. Shame.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 3 2015, 09:31 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 3 2015, 08:26 PM)
Increase the size of the wards to reduce the number of councillors to about 25. Select the executive and shadow executive from this plus chairs of main committees (finance, planning & scrutiny). Introduce a District Assembly made up of the district councillors plus one representative from each parish council (unpaid) to vote on the budget and major policy changes - meets quarterly. Parish council representatives can be co-opted sit on committees if necessary.
Interesting idea.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 3 2015, 09:32 PM
QUOTE (Sherlock @ Jun 3 2015, 10:01 AM)
An administration whose overriding aims are to slash costs, reduce the role of the state, and to hollow-out local government...
I dream of the day.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 3 2015, 09:52 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Jun 3 2015, 06:00 PM)
Can you see any savings.
There's practically no sense at all in having any democratic involvement in the majority of services delivered by WBC. Can you think of a single service which benefits from councillor involvement and which couldn't more effectively be delivered by a national executive agency?
Planning for example. Deciding whether any given application meets the required criteria is simply a technical assessment against objective standards and the decision should be made by professionals. There is obviously a need for local input into those objective standards, but I'd argue that this is the role of the parish council who should be writing the design standards in close consultation with their parishioners.
Strategic and town planning might well be a job for WBC, but again that's a technical job that can only be done by professionals, and again this would need to be informed by the parish design standards.
I can't think of much else that WBC does that benefits from any kind of input from councillors.
Posted by: motormad Jun 6 2015, 02:08 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 13 2015, 06:19 PM)
Remember "We are all in it together"
The only thing we are togetger in, is the fact its our wallets taking the hit!
Posted by: Cognosco Jun 6 2015, 02:17 PM
QUOTE (motormad @ Jun 6 2015, 03:08 PM)
The only thing we are togetger in, is the fact its our wallets taking the hit!
The big National Politician's have been granted a pay rise so therefore it follows that their wannabe locals will follow suit.
When the Plebs started objecting it was stated that the politicians had no hand in the decision it was decided by an independent panel?
Then it was pointed out that so was the minimal rise that was decided on by an independent panel that was for NHS staff. But of course that was not allowed because the Nation could not afford it. Then of course you have to analyse just how independent this panel is from the actual Government that actually employs the panel?
Just proves "We are all in this together" doesn't it"
Posted by: On the edge Jun 6 2015, 02:47 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Jun 6 2015, 03:17 PM)
The big National Politician's have been granted a pay rise so therefore it follows that their wannabe locals will follow suit.
When the Plebs started objecting it was stated that the politicians had no hand in the decision it was decided by an independent panel?
Then it was pointed out that so was the minimal rise that was decided on by an independent panel that was for NHS staff. But of course that was not allowed because the Nation could not afford it. Then of course you have to analyse just how independent this panel is from the actual Government that actually employs the panel?
Just proves "We are all in this together" doesn't it"
When the Plebs started objecting it was stated that the politicians had no hand in the decision it was decided by an independent panel?
Then it was pointed out that so was the minimal rise that was decided on by an independent panel that was for NHS staff. But of course that was not allowed because the Nation could not afford it. Then of course you have to analyse just how independent this panel is from the actual Government that actually employs the panel?
Just proves "We are all in this together" doesn't it"
Cognosco, you are playing with fire again! Won't be long before they knock on your door...
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)