To think that £17k for being a local councillor is excessive?

[Sweetpotatoaddict]

I was curious to see what they were paid, and expected a small amount as its a role designed to fit with another job. It concerns me that it may encourage people to stand purely for the financial gain and not because of a desire to help. I'm curious to hear what other mnetters think. Or have I misinterpreted something somewhere?

Let me just pose this question as a follow up.

Say we make local borough councillors a paid role at the national average of £26k per year.

Now just think about what the recruitment process is for a job in government that pays that kind of salary and involves similar decisions.

My DH works in government. Their recruitment for similar-ish types of roles at that salary is now a competency-based application form, an interview, a series of psychometric tests, and possibly an assessment day with a role play exercise and a priority test. It's got to the point where it is pretty impossible to get a job with them at that grade without significant former goverment experience (and you need a degree).

So if you make borough councillor roles paid at that level, you will get those processes applied to selection procedures at party level because the pool of people that will apply will increase significantly, and parties will start to ask monitoring officers and party head offices how to deal with applicants, and that's how government recruitment processes will cascade down into councillor selection.

To some extent, this is a massive problem with MP selection. £67k pa is a damn good salary outside of the South East, and attracts people who are ruthless personal salesmen or people who want to use the role to support their own personal hobby horses. It's led to career politicians who just want jobs that fund their own proclivities, rather than people who actually want to represent their constituents.

If Local politicians are paid salaries they will think they are the experts - rather than just bods who come and go on a 4 year cycle.

The crap policies coming out of Whitehall show how bad an idea that is

You have to think this through. If you give the position a significant salary, you will get more people applying to the selection process because it's an alternative to a job. Thus the selection process will become more stringent and competitive. The kind of diversity we need in local government won't stand a chance.

But the kind of diversity we need in local government is also not getting through because of not being able to afford to put in that level of work for that level of salary. It is not as though local government is a bedrock of diversity now. We know it isn't. Things that require people to effectively work for free or at a loss never are.

You mention ex taxi drivers and NHS district nurses- why do you think people in those income brackets are going to be able to work for such low renumeration?

Where people are in local politics because they are civic-minded and want to improve their communities and services, you get excellent representation.

No doubt, but where's the evidence that you get excellent representation when you exclude people who can't or won't do the job for so little? I just don't see why you're assuming there's any correlation between encouraging good people to stand and become councillors and paying under NMW for it. Actually the connotations of that are bordering on the offensive, the idea that people whose living situation and finances allow them to work for wee buttons somehow care more about their constituents.

You talk about very high salaries and MPs. I don't think anyone's suggesting it be an MP level salary, are they? But the reality is, we know that some good people are excluded because of the finances. They always are, if you don't pay enough to live on for political office holders. That is inevitable. There is no getting round that.

Its less the actual finances than the attitudes.
I deal with Local Government far more than is healthy.

Less golf and rotarians
more acceptance of e-meetings
less backhanders through "councillors grants"
its the little changes that will work

as for MP's : their salary is fine, but they think they are worth more

Well, you get bad attitudes at every salary level.

I kind of agree with scary clown - some of our local councillors are the biggest wastes of space going - completely ineffectual, ducking and diving where there are decisions to be made.

I'm in Scotland, and basic remittance is £17K plus expenses - most councillors seem to claim about £4K.

We have had 2 major issues within our council over the last year. One councillor in particular has been absent every time there has been a vote, rendering the vote invalid.

One councillor has lied about a serious issue twice that I know of. I have tried to raise this issue with council chiefs but have been fobbed off.

The councillors also 'fiddle while Rome burns' - the town where I live is dying on its feet, but all they seem to faff with is dog shit and garden waste collection. We're waiting for the new schools built with PFI to be found to have major building faults as has happened with so many other newly built schools in Scotland.

Three of our wards councillors run their own businesses, so it's quite hard to tell whether they put enough time into council business - they certainly only run one hour long surgery a month.

There are certainly instances of infighting and long running feuds between some of the councillors, and they are mostly middle aged, middle class men.

There needs to be change, but newcomers don't get a look in - the old Scottish saying 'It's aye been'. (It's always been) reigns supreme.

I'm sure there are councillors who work tirelessly for the betterment of their residents. It just seems none of them work here!

I work with councillors daily. Some are rubbish but some of the county councillors, especially those with a high profile portfolio are outstanding and incredible value for money

I thought it was unwaged like being a magistrate! I bet it was in my grandfather's day (he was one in the 1930s) I used to think fostering was free too with no pay. I am obviously very behind the times.

I must be very lucky where I live then. Majority of Local Councillors work extremely hard and involve themselves in a lot around here.

Any local councillor worth their salt would be pulling in significantly more than that in backhanders.

I work in local authority and the best councillors are paid ones. Hand down. Pay them and they do a job, don't pay them Acd they don't turn up, don't read policy and don't represent the local community to the best of their ability because they try to earn a living doing something other than be a local councillor.

Bathsheba
One councillor in particular has been absent every time there has been a vote, rendering the vote invalid.
I cannot see how that is the case. If the meeting is quorate the other councillors can vote.

Doris
Any local councillor worth their salt would be pulling in significantly more than that in backhanders.
If you think so, report them to the Monitoring Officer.

Sadly Eric Pickles abolished the Standards Board so its more like the Wild West than it should be.

Standards Board went but each council will have a standards committee. You can't actually sack a councillor though.

Bathsheba take a look at the Local Government Ombudsman website (of last resort) if it's the Council that is underperforming as opposed to just one councillor.

iseeno
Councils do indeed have their own standards
but they are all different
and there is no enforcement

councillors can be forced out if they do not attend a meeting for 6 months. That's about it.

But the real point is that if more of the public engaged more

• nice high turnouts at elections
• attending meetings
• replying to consultations
• reading the minutes and complaining if they are lying

we would get better democracy

Good councils video and stream their meetings so you can find out what is going on from the comfort of your own home.

If you do not vote, do not complain.

@janetbrown fostering varies.

Basic fostering brings an expense allowance per child, plus an experience related 'bonus'. In my area, btn £20/child/week and £100/child/week. For a 24/7/365 job, that's not a lot, and you are very restricted as to what other jobs you can do at the same time.

Therapeutic or emergency fostering, you probably get a wage of about £21k. Again, not a vast amount for a twenty four high job when you may well get sworn at, spat at, kicked... All in your own home.

Local councillors vary enormously with people getting paid nothing but working like Trojans, and others doing very little but getting an allowance. The bigger allowances go to portfolio holders, who only hold a portfolio if they have worked effectively in other areas.

Cardiff County Council pays 13-14k and I think has its meetings in the evening so you are supposed to be able to do it on top of another job.
As others have said, retired people and men in particular are over-represented.

My job brings me into contact with councillors a lot at different levels. The majority of the ones where I live are utterly useless and not worth their allowances (which ftr range between £500-16000). There is one who is worth his weight in gold, a number who are okay, more who do fuck all and 3 or 4 who are so arrogant they behave like they are royalty. They are generally not great value for money for council tax payers.

Some counties I'm sure have very good councillors but it's sadly not my experience.

My (annoying) relative is a councillor, he does very little and has a poor attendance record, it really doesn't take up much of his life and he has a full-time job as well. He says himself it's good money for old rope - he lives in a rural area with a low population though. He was a district as well as county councillor at one point, so was coining it in. Some councillors will be conscientious, some won't. I would prefer for them to be considered as having a full-time job, get a reasonable salary and not be allowed to have other employed jobs or business interests as well. That way there's less chance of corruption and you would weed out those looking for a decent secondary income rather than wanting to actually be a councillor.

To scaryclown and others who agree - instead of criticising why not stand for council yourselves and see if you can do any better? You might be great at it! I know loads of councillors across differing political parties and most are great and work so hard for their communities, irrespective of which party they are from. The alternative to councillors is unelected quangos or dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise.
Unless you see what they actually do, day in and day out and are prepared to do it yourself, then you shouldn't criticise. Local government is constantly attacked by people who don't know what they are talking about, including Eric Pickles who did so much damage.
We should give more credit to those who represent us, starting with voting.

I would prefer for them to be considered as having a full-time job, get a reasonable salary and not be allowed to have other employed jobs or business interests as well.
Please No

That is the problem at Westminster - career politicians with no real connection to an area

the whole point of part time councillors is that they live and work in the area so they UNDERSTAND the needs of the community.

Demographically they are out of kilter, but the way to change that is to stand against them

That's a fair point Talk1n but, in my opinion, they should only be allowed to be councillors after having some experience working in the 'real world' anyway - and the same goes for politicians. I'm very much against career politicians who have never done a day's work in anything other than politics.

Ta1kinPeace
I agree if you don't vote don't complain.

I think Standards will become more robust again, sooner rather than later. There seems to be a widespread recognition the current arrangements were written in great haste and lack teeth.

How can we say the point of part time councillors is that they live and work in an area, when the retired are over-represented? I don't personally think you have to work in a particular geographic area to understand it anyway, but that's just as well considering how many don't.

Demographically they are out of kilter, but the way to change that is to stand against them

The financial arrangements mean I couldn't if I wanted to, and I live in an area that pays more than some (urban though, and our councillors do actually do quite a lot of stuff as I have good reason to know) .