Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: GMR Feb 22 2013, 05:28 PM

"We are all in it together," as David Cameron said. So it is nice to see that not only the poor is suffering but those at the richer end of our society. According to the Newbury Weekly News "17 top-earning district council staff cost taxpayers £1.84 million". Top earner was Chief executive Nick Carter whose annual salary - in 2009 - £133,418. But the cost of his position increased to £175,860 by the time his £5,000 car allowance, employer's pension and national insurance contribution were added. The minimum salary of a senior civil servant is £58,200 while an MPs wages is £65, 738. Our PM (who runs the whole country) gets only £142,500. Nick Carter gets approximately £33,000 more than the MP. So I can see the suffering and sacrificed he has made so that we can all be in it together. Of course I could add that the director of environment - John Ashworth - only gets £133,066, but I won't. So I say to you hard earning tax payers in the West Berkshire region to spare a thought for those that have sacrificed so much for us and being part of those that are suffering and tightening their belts. So let us give a silent prayer to those 17 top-earners at our Tax payers' expense. We are all in it together.

"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools" Martin luther King.

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separetly" Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: On the edge Feb 22 2013, 09:10 PM

Oh come on GMR! Worth every penny. After all what would happen if he wasn't there? Doesn't bear thinking about. Yet it could so easily happen. He would go elsewhere else, like S****horpe or Clacton, and then where would we be? No one to sign Mr Ashworth's expenses or leave chits, No one to ask the Directors to see that Department Heads check the Section Heads are ensuring the Team Leaders are making sure the the Officers are giving the Chargehands the right instructions to the workers putting up road signs and the like. Its all pressure, would you really like a job where you are constantly worrying about what to do next? The top job isn't really operational, that leaves far more time for thinking and as we can see a lot of thought goes into West Berkshire.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2013, 09:13 PM

Yes, Newbury without a £175k CEO doesn't bear thinking about!

Posted by: GMR Feb 22 2013, 09:28 PM

Silly me.... never thought of that

Posted by: motormad Feb 22 2013, 10:34 PM

Rather than moan at the council staff for managing to get and hold well paid jobs why don't you perhaps work harder? Or maybe, become a councilor?
Seems legit to me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2013, 11:02 PM

Posted by: Strafin Feb 22 2013, 11:40 PM

There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2013, 11:55 PM

Bloody ****, well said that man. Or is it your dad posting?

Posted by: motormad Feb 23 2013, 12:07 AM

My Dad lives in Reading so it's most certainly me.

I'm not saying that I agree with the high amounts of pay, but at the end of the day, if some matey can get a £175,000 a year then frankly, well done to him and I think it's funny how people get angry at that that - So I don't agree with the high pay but I probably couldn't do a better job, so why moan about it.

If being a councilor is so easy as often discussed by those with Beards, why not become a one yourself and earn that sort of money? That way you too can afford your own Helicopter.

"a quote of non-direct relation to my above comments" Someone who I'm using to try and make me look smarter.
"i probably didn't say this, but if I did then I take it all back" Dave from Number Sixty-Two.

Posted by: newres Feb 23 2013, 06:52 AM

If council staff worked harder, we could perhaps manage with less of them.

Posted by: Andy1 Feb 23 2013, 08:18 AM

The Military, Nurses, Policemen and Women, Fire Fighters too name a few, work very hard. They provide a service unlike any sector in that they make a difference and yet does their pay reflect that. Mind you they did choose to do the job.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 23 2013, 08:24 AM

Do they work that hard though? Or are they professions that are so valuable we're afraid to challenge that? And the CE of the council is not worth that kind of money, and the nature of the public sector seems to be that people are kept in jobs and promoted all the time because its deemed that what should happen. Again not much challenging going on, because they have unlimited funds. They just keep putting up council tax.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 23 2013, 08:44 AM

Quite so!

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Feb 23 2013, 08:46 AM

what a miserable post having a go at soilders and nurses

first time counciltax has gone up in a few years init

the cost of stuff goes up with inflation so they either have to put tax up by a bit or cut stuff

Posted by: Strafin Feb 23 2013, 09:50 AM

What a ridiculous response, firstly I didn't have a go at anyone, I asked a question. Secondly council tax goes up every year and is scheduled to go above the government target next time round. Thirdly there are many more people who work for the council, soldiers and nurses don't. I think you illustrate my point though, dare to question whether or not the NHS or military is value for money and you're met with the same reply.

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Feb 23 2013, 10:01 AM

counciltax didn't go up last year don't think it went up before either

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/old-news-article-19065

stop bashing nurses and soilders lets hope you never need their services

Posted by: Strafin Feb 23 2013, 10:22 AM

Well again, I haven't actually "bashed" anyone, and I believe council tax has gone up every year recently, I could be wrong on that though. However what I am suggesting is that it's not always a bad thing to cut stuff.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2013, 10:27 AM

He didn't bash nurses or soldiers, he questioned why it is out of bounds to criticise them. Being a nurse or a soldier doesn't necessarily make you a good one. As for a Executive pay, I feel that is a fair target and a question more people around the world should question, especially share holders. Executive pay has soared compared to average pay.

Posted by: Ron Feb 23 2013, 10:31 AM

It's not councilors getting this sum, it's a 'hired hand'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2013, 10:39 AM

This isn't bout being envious of their salary, it is about questioning whether the salary they receive is appropriate under the circumstances!


There are times when I think you are the protagonist!

Posted by: Andy1 Feb 23 2013, 11:14 AM

A good Salesman or Executive is rewarded with commission or bonuses. A good Nurse or Soldier is rewarded with more work a medal or another tour of a war zone.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 23 2013, 11:15 AM

Soldiers and nurses get promoted, and increased pay, just like everybody else.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2013, 11:22 AM

So are bad ones!

Posted by: Andy1 Feb 23 2013, 11:27 AM

This is true but for the vast majority who follow, who don't have the leadership skills or maybe the education, just get on and do without question. Some of those same people are then just tossed on the heap with no pension, prospects or respect.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 23 2013, 02:16 PM

WBC's council tax was frozen last year - but your bill might have gone up a bit if the other elements (police, fire service, parish) went up.

However, you are totally wrong about the rise being above government targets - the government set a maximum of 2%. WBC is proposing a rise of slightly less than 2%. Councils are free to set even higher rises, but the government would then punish them by reducing grants, similarly they promise to increase grants to councils that don't raise the tax.

Pickles as since come out blustering about perfidious councils daring to put up council tax by just below the limit! If he thought they would do anything else he must be mad.

WBC's budget is falling at the same time as costs are rising and government grants are reducing - a below-inflation increase in council tax is not that bad considering.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 23 2013, 04:55 PM

Its difficult to have a sensible debate because the minute anyone starts suggesting simple economics we have histrionics about military and medical providers. Efficiency and economy should be in all things, as the last Government and our previous Council administrations have amply proved you don't solve problems by throwing money at them.

Yes, our local government is cutting costs; very good and well done. However, there is a way to go. We should be properly assessing everything in all services and I for one am not convinced that's the case right now. For instance, have we had a serious look at slimming down the management structures at WBC, does a Police Helicopter really and honestly give full value, etc.etc. etc.

Similarly, nationally, far better examples should be set. Why are we still using versions of the Barnett formula paying out far more to Scotland than justified or necessary? Why are we not demanding significant changes to procurement rules to eliminate costly overhead and extortionate contract prices. NHS in particular suffers from that and has becoming a cash cow for drugs companies, suffering from the same malaise as Defence procurement.

If we really are all in this together, then we would all be striving for economy and efficiency, no matter what our role in life.

NOTE = the words economy and efficiency do not mean cheap and nasty, quite the reverse.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2013, 05:10 PM

That could be applied to all forms of employment & labour. If my woman worked harder I wouldn't have to employ a Swedish au pair.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 24 2013, 08:14 AM

Its very often not about 'working harder', more about better and more effective process. That is often just better management. You are right about elsewhere, the Post Office is a classic example. What other retail business would have customers queuing for so long and such inane practices and processes at the 'tills. Simple straightforward transactions take for ever and are still stuck in paper and ink, one could be forgiven for thinking this is deliberate. Look at the Application form for the technical college, a whole page of 'ethnic monitoring' questions. Some poor clerk will have to spend time entering that into the system and then some middle managers will spend hours pouring over the resultant statistics. Why? What difference has this ever made? If we don't get this right soon, no prospective au pair will want to come here, you'll have an aid worker instead.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 24 2013, 10:25 AM

It's a puzzle to me what people use the Post Office for. In my case, it's not much more than an annual trip to buy Christmas stamps, or recently, to pick up a passport renewal form because the online system was broken (and that lasts ten years )

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 24 2013, 10:34 AM

It's been broken for ten years!

Posted by: JeffG Feb 24 2013, 10:47 AM

Yes, I could have constructed that sentence better.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 24 2013, 11:43 AM

I have to go next month for car tax, and to renew my driving license. I also have picked up holiday money in the past. I suspect there's a lot of "ebayers" who use it more regularly.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 24 2013, 12:28 PM

That latter is the case. Posting a parcel has all the problems associated with the inefficiencies of the post office. How they themselves wonder why the commercial carriers are stealing the business I don't know. Parcelforce has to be the way the postal service should look to the future. Unlike a letter, you can't send a parcel by email. Instead I have to queue through the shop behind a load of people who want to pay a gas bill or something and then have to weigh my parcel, as at St John's, wait while the person on the other side of the glass grudgingly tells me what it will cost, poke my money under the glass and then get my change thrown into a cup. Upwards of 15 minutes from start to finish.
The main post office has no parking and seems to always have a queue of twenty or thirty people so I don't use it but the alternative is almost as bad since the other post offices were closed.
Wouldn't it be an idea to have self service parcel positions something like the self checkouts in B&Q and the supermarkets. A proper Parcelforce reception point with parking outside. In fact I'm sure that there must be loads of other facilities which do not need some person with a strong right arm and a circular rubber stamp.

Posted by: Squelchy Feb 24 2013, 01:33 PM

You are aware that Parcelforce is owned and run by the Royal Mail aren't you?

Posted by: JeffG Feb 24 2013, 02:28 PM

Well, that's not been my experience at St. John's post office. Staff have always been pleasant enough when I've been there.

Yes, I guess it's mostly people who need to send parcels. Car tax renewal is a couple of clicks on line, then it arrives in the post a couple of days later.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 24 2013, 03:01 PM

You can only renew on line if you have already renewed once before. I bought a car in January so I have to go and do it in person, which seems ridiculous to me.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 24 2013, 05:12 PM

They probably need a DNA swab or something to prove you are who you say you are The reason is probably that your personal information is not set up until after the first renewal - that seems the only logical explanation. Doesn't the garage you bought it from arrange the first disc? It's a while since I bought my car, so I don't remember.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 24 2013, 05:31 PM

Not for the money I paid

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 24 2013, 06:52 PM

Yes of course. I was suggesting how they might recover their share of the market by a little modern technology.

Posted by: GMR Feb 24 2013, 06:54 PM

Who said I was moaning? I was just stating a fact. Anyway, it is tax payers money and if you are happy then so be it.

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 05:09 PM

“We are all in this together” is a phrase concocted by the Tory leader. The only way we can be in this together is if we elect a party that understands the people and work for them and not just big business. The Lib Dems would bring in strong tax regime that would target rich businesses, rich people and do more to help the poor. We’ve only got ourselves blame. Luckily for the country the Lib-Dems managed to form a coalition with the Tory’s so that we could rein in their excess and actually do just and help the poor.

Posted by: Squelchy Feb 25 2013, 05:27 PM

Coalition Cuts so far: 20,000 Army, 5,000 Navy, 5,000 RAF, 60,000 NHS, 16,000 Police, 730,000 Public Sector, 1,700 Remploy
and 2 Bankers.

Bang-up job Lib Dems.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 25 2013, 05:28 PM

C'mon now, you know this is beacuse of the awful state the economy was left in by the last lot...

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 05:33 PM

And why is this happening? Because of what we inherited from the last government, a labour government. No party can come in and change things for the better straight away. It is a long, long process. But we know who to blame, don't we?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 25 2013, 05:34 PM

Told you so!

Posted by: newres Feb 25 2013, 05:38 PM

Good. All bloated (excep maybe Remploy and the Government aren't responsible for the many tens of thousands bank staff made redundant) . A few more police sacked would be useful to keep more death off the streets.

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 05:38 PM

Ah, a Lib Dem support. Carry on the good work.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 25 2013, 05:40 PM

Is it half day closing at the asylum today?

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 05:45 PM

Is it? Is that why you've joined in with this discussion? Nobody should be discriminated against. Glad to see your input.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Feb 25 2013, 05:51 PM

Was that the one with the AAA rating?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 25 2013, 05:54 PM

No, just a guess as to the age of excuse which would be trotted out. And I was right. Btw - you haven't got sole rights to it - it is what every party claims. Even into a second term.

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 05:55 PM

This decline started well before the coalition came into power. Our economic decline started with the Labour Government. What the coalition is trying to do is correct past mistakes. Our down grading is a short blip. Under the coalition we will reverse it. Long before the next election.

Posted by: newres Feb 25 2013, 05:58 PM

Dunno. You work there.

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 06:00 PM

Work there? Sorry, but I got the impression he lived in such a place. That is the impression he gave.

Posted by: newres Feb 25 2013, 06:03 PM

Pretty sure no one spends enough time at WBC to claim they live there. Actually, I'm not sure that many actually work there either.

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 06:04 PM

With 1.8 million payed to them why should they?

Posted by: Weavers Walk Feb 25 2013, 06:07 PM

Actually 'Moody's' report says that our underlying problem started with total de-regulation in 1986. Who was in power then?

Posted by: newres Feb 25 2013, 06:12 PM

On that money you'd think Nick could afford not go live in Swindon.

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 06:13 PM

Swindon has decline over the years but I presume he lives on the outskirts.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 25 2013, 06:34 PM

I don't work.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 25 2013, 07:15 PM

Totally agree, still some work to be done though. I'd be up for cutting the military down a bit too, get rid of some drunken do nothing squaddies and maybe we'll get a few less daft YouTube parodies from Helmand as well.

Posted by: newres Feb 25 2013, 07:40 PM

I see a big future for you in WBC.

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 07:49 PM

Yes, every party claims something but some are actually genuine.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 25 2013, 07:59 PM

sorry - all parties a bunch of self serving egomanics who'd sell their own mothers for a vote.

Posted by: motormad Feb 25 2013, 08:00 PM

By 'eck, he seems to be onto a roll that there Dannyboy!

To which the ConDom party are not included.
They might as well bend us over and just tear us all a new one.

I'm not saying Labour were perfect and to be honest I was born in 1991 and didn't even become aware of what the "Prime Minister" was until around 1997 so it's not like I have a good history but don't you think it's a little old blaming everything on the Labour party? I don't support them, I don't like them, but at the same time the WORLD WIDE economic downfall was hardly Labours fault neither is it fair to blame them for everything that's gone wrong in this country since there are plenty of things outside of their control (EG what companies do...)

I severely doubt if another political party was in charge during the 1991-2006 period we'd be in a significantly different situation than we are now...

Posted by: newres Feb 25 2013, 08:02 PM

Cameron and Osborne? Genuine?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 25 2013, 09:40 PM

Which one? Certainly can't be the LibDems - have you ever read their campaign strategy books? Wouldn't trust them to run a public lavatory! We can even see it for real in Eastleigh. Apparently its OK to build a load of houses on locally treasured green fields there, although its the reverse in Newbury. Then, Tory Newbury is wholly out of order for putting Community Charge up by 2%, yet its OK for LibDem Portsmouth.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2013, 12:01 AM

I think that is a little unfair, as I am sure you are aware, it is incumbent on the opposition to object to the administration. It is the type of democracy that we have. It is one of the methods our democracy uses to scrutinise policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_process#Adversarial_politics

Personally, I don't like Adversarial Politics for the reasons given in the link.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Feb 26 2013, 04:12 AM

A bit like the Lib-Dem pledge on Tuition Fees?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 26 2013, 07:56 AM

See last Andy C Post - can't get the quote copied!

I don't totally agree. Opposition doesn't and didn't mean simply taking the reverse opinion on each and every issue. Reasoned scrutiny, yes. Equally, by their own admission, the LibDems will use any legal tactic to secure power, which means their policies quickly become tainted and obscure. For instance, what would David Rendel have done in this years Budget? I suspect the answer is exactly the same as the Tories. Nothing wrong with that, but the inflammatory language and posturing suggests radical difference.

Wholly agree the response was unfair, the same points can be made and examples found for the other parties, but the response was back to an avid LibDem supporter/missionary, who can see no wrong. Clearly a convert!

Posted by: JeffG Feb 26 2013, 09:12 AM

(You have to multiquote the two posts then edit - click the Quote button on each then AddReply at the bottom.)

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2013, 11:08 AM

But it is the politics we have. It is not a law, just simply the way things are done. As you acknowledge; all parties do it, so to pick on any one party is unfair. It is called point scoring. Personally, I think it undermines prudent governance and makes politicians appear dishonest. Mind you, what it might do is make the incumbent think more carefully before they do things if they know they will meet strong opposition. Or that's the theory, anyway.

Do you think Spider is truly a Lib Dem evangelist? I 'smell a rat'.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 26 2013, 11:34 AM

vote Waldo

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 26 2013, 11:35 AM

It comes over like a parody or caricature sometimes, but my guess is that Spider is in earnest, but rather young. I think we just assume good-faith.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 26 2013, 11:39 AM

*d'oh!*

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2013, 12:56 PM

Nope, I tried, but I have no idea what you are on about!

Posted by: JeffG Feb 26 2013, 02:58 PM

Probably because it was OTE I was addressing that to.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2013, 03:48 PM

That may be true, but I still don't know what it is you were trying to suggest.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 26 2013, 05:49 PM

How to include a quoted quote, which doesn't get included when you do an ordinary Reply. Just trying to be helpful.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 26 2013, 06:11 PM

I believe that pound for pound, our political system works quite well but as far as I'm concerned it is the blame culture that seems to infiltrate everything. The politicians and their spin doctors have a wonderful selective memory and they know well that the average 'Joe Public' will have difficulty remembering who did what and when.
The blame for the current economic problems stem from current world conditions but the fact remains that we have no buffer to help us out of the swamp. It's no good the current lot blaming the Labour party for handing over a poor legacy but look back a little further and which party did most to destroy our manufacturing rather than find a solution to the lousy emloyer/employee relations. The Conservatives.

The benefit of parliament is that there is debate on major subjects in the lower and upper houses which is public although cabinet may be a grey area.

We really could benefit from an overhaul of the local authority system. Top heavy, trying to emulate Westminster and some dodgy decisions made because of the blind allegiance to the party rules with the full time staff in a lot of cases, behaving like a load of jobsworths unable to make a decision because of some out of date policy written yonks ago.

I'm OK with a 2% (or just under) rise in my council tax if it saves some of the services that we need. I'm not too comfortable however, with the overheads and some of the suspect deals that the council have made and wonder if some of the levels are needed/justified to the detriment of services.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 26 2013, 07:01 PM

Yes, of course you are right. Much as I distrust any party, I fully admit I have a thing about the LibDems, its a personal one and probably irrational and that was showing; proving your theory! In political terms, I suspect like many people I'd be an anarchist; just do what's best for now.

Spider? I'm really not sure, there is something not quite right, granted. Some years back, I did a marketing / promotion type course, where we were set a bit of course work to promote an unpopular cause over a period, by being wholly positive, most of us ended up sounding like Spider! As the lecturer said, this positive support produced a negative result; so folks, you have a tactic!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2013, 07:20 PM

Now I get you. I was curious because I thought you have found a way to automatically add embedded quotes.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2013, 07:25 PM

That is along the lines of what I was thinking. I sense mischief making, perhaps from another party.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2013, 07:44 PM

Agreed, and it is also always easier to criticise something when you have no responsibility for the outcome.


The problem I see with politics is the short termism of it all. But it is human nature not to respond, or to understand a need, until it became blatantly obvious.

Labour do have to accept some of the blame, especially for the structural deficit. They went on an unsustainable spending spree on health and education. Admirable things to do, but their spending didn't come with effective performance agreements, nor did it calculate the cost of a down-turn. So when the whatsit hit the fan, there was no reserve to cushion the blow.

But let's just cast our minds back. When we were awash with money (a lot of it false money), it would have taken a very strong government to convince the electorate that we should tighten out belts.


Politicians don't have the luxury of telling the truth. The electorate are not sensible enough to accept it.

Posted by: newres Feb 27 2013, 01:06 PM

Why don't WBC staff look out of the window in the morning?

To give them something to do in the afternoon.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 27 2013, 01:59 PM

Vote Waldo.