I have to take issue with this BB. sorry in advance. Becoming a councillor (particularly at the municipal or town level) is not the way to become rich - mostly they earn less doing it than the people they are representing. The work is mostly done by people who have pensions to fall back on. I know this because I have served on a town council (for a town of 20,000 population) - we had an allowance of 400 Euros monthly (it was expected that half of this would be donated to the party) plus 26 Euros for every meeting attended (and the same for any committees you were on). These meetings could last for up to 4 hours and it was expected that you had gone through all the paperwork for everythng which was voted on - in the end you just wanted to get things off the table and move on. The result is that normal working people don't go in for this type of job. Throughout the system politics is not the way to become rich - even at the upper levels.
That may well be the case in Germany, but not necessarily the case in the UK. I have two friends, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, who serve as councillors in Aberdeenshire - both are self-employed so their councillor salaries are second incomes. They both say that is quite common in the council. The only one I know of who worked solely as a councillor, did so in order to get herself known in the area, as she had her eyes on Holyrood. A sole parent with five children, she managed - but was admittedly happy with the pay rise when she was elected as our MSP a while ago.
So, admittedly the salary paid to councillors is not enough to live on - whether in Germany or in the UK. The question is - should it be ? I would say yes to this one. Otherwise the role will only be occupied either by pensioners, or by those who are well to do financially and don't need the extra money. Nobody working a full working week with a young family could afford to do such a thing. So is it any wonder that so much of the political work in both countries is being done by people who don't really know the issues concerned and who are not representative of the population as a whole, either by age, sex or income. I would say professionalize the whole thing if you really want a professional job done. So maybe the 45% increase was justified, though the telegraph saw it as a convenient stick to beat the Labour party with. Actually do our top politicians really get too much ? - the public believes so - but then how does the salary of the PM or cabinet minister compare with that of a top banker, or even Troy Deeney for that matter ?
I'd disagree - if a sole parent with five children can live on it, why can't others? But the main issue for me is the size of the rise awarded to senior councillors - they get the 45% whilst the 'standard' councillors are rewarded with just 4% - for me that doesn't sound like a traditional Labour thing, but I guess I may be wrong.
I think this is a distorted party politics article in the Torygraph...... 45% of not much is not much..... and this is London too. Remember the Tories want to win back Westminster
At one time the UK government proposed that Parish Councils should pay councillors. Despite the fact that except for one retired member of my council, all members were working full time, so meetings were held in the evenings. A vote was taken, and 100% voted against. The general feeling was that we did it to try and improve our community, and we didn't want people to think we only did it for the money.
I tend to agree the principle.... sadly lost more and more in this day and age..... and particularly with MPs... whilst their basic salary is not massive for working the way they do... they supplement it ...and I am against that as it makes it so difficult to be without personal interest... ..and their pay rise should be a similar % to other public servants
Well it all needs to be revised across the board... which clearly is a mammoth task....IMO all public servants post revision should get the same formula % rise every year...so the top dogs cant give themselves more than others... and there can be no issues......
I didn't say that I did - hence the use of the word 'traditional'. Maybe I should have said Pre-1997 Labour?
Which is why everyone wants to come here rather than stay in Germany or France sand why a lot of Brits want immigration reduced to GENUINE ASYLUM SEEKERS OR GENUINE REFUGEES IN A WAR ZONE not 18 - 25 Albanians which is all we see in any news flash where another dinghy has landed
As the debate on the new immigration bill starts, it is reported that since the start of the war in Ukraine, not a single person from that country has entered the UK via a small boat. There are safe routes from there, and visas are issued after claims have been looked into before people travel. Macron offered the UK government the opportunity to set up processing centres here, but the offer was declined. It looks as though with people out on strikes everywhere, unaffordable cost of living for many people, and the rivers and beaches being destroyed, it suits the government to hammer on about this to cover up their lack of ability to do anything positive to improve people's lives.
Speaking of that debate - although in the end it didn't make any difference to the result, what a poor example Starmer set by choosing to not vote. Not a good look for a supposed 'Leader' of the Opposition in such an important parliamentary debate.
