Should our County Councillors be paid more?

That is the question being put to the County Councillors on Tuesday 18/10/11. My simple answer is YES! The public undervalues the role of councillor and their ability to run this organisation and, if in opposition, to hold the ruling party to account.

What should be the rate of pay?

The report from the Independent Remuneration Panel says it should be £9500 a year or £13571 if the 30% cut is taken into account. The 30% comes from a weird idea that somehow part of the job is Public Service and therefore salaries are discounted by 30% to take this into account. Whilst I understand why this Public Service discount element is included, because Parliament says it should be, I disagree with this assumption. A job is a job and discounting is simply wrong. Otherwise shouldn't the public demand that all Council jobs have a element of Public Service and therefore all public jobs, from cleaner to Chief Executive, should therefore contain this public service element.

The £13571 is for 2.5 days a week which equates to £27142 a year. This is therefore the basic amount for a County Councillor. By my rule of thumb this is probably the right amount for a County Councillor.

What adds to the job is Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA). These are paid to many of the County Councillors. From the Council Leader down to Opposition Spokesman. Panel Chairmen also get SRAs. CCC doesn't have a 1 SRA rule. In theory Councillors could take on several SRA and boost their pay. I believe the 1 SRA rule must be introduced.

The major problem is comparing the job of being a County Councillor to that of any other job. Whilst the comparable jobs seem to be a Non-executive NHS Trust directorship and those member of a Police Authority neither of these are elected. Comparisons made against other County Councils also adds to problems because these add to wage inflation. because if A and B get paid higher then C has to have a pay rise. Many of the problems in Local Government Finance happen because the lower scales rise and this pushes the salaries above upwards. I could go more into Senior Officer pay but I'll do that at a later date.

The basic problem is these comparisons are really a paper chase with numbers that, in reality, aren't comparable. What the Independent Remuneration Panel is actually doing is having a stab in the dark.

There seems to be a recognition that Councillors need to attend meetings. The idea that Councillors should lose money for not attending meetings is a good idea. The bar seems to be set too low. The idea is if a Councillor attends less than 75% of all meetings then they lose 10% of their allowance for each 10% they don't attend. Under these rules if they attend 66% of meetings they don't lose any money. If they attend 65% of meetings they lose 10% of their basic allowance.

The bar should be set higher. As Councillors are our employee I expect them to be there 100% of the time. At work I'm expected to turn up every day. I have holidays. Take this off and I'm expected to attend work for 90% of the time. Therefore the bar should be set at 100% attendance with any Councillor attending less than 90% being docked 10% of basic allowances. Each subsequent 10% meaning a loss of another 10% of basic allowances. Under this scheme a Councillor attending 90% of the time will get full basic allowance.

I feel our County Councillors should be paid more. What meetings they attend and the reasons why they don't attend should be made available to their employers. Namely the people who elect them, the electors, and this information should be public. And YES their pay should cut if they don't attend than 90% or more of the the meetings they should attend. 


The problem is there is no good time to increase their pay. Now is probably the worst. Either we pay and value our politicians properly or we expect this job to be done for free. For what is seen by the public as an easy job for easy money doesn't entice many of the electorate to apply for these jobs. 

New Homes Bonus. What is in it for St Neots?

Part of the new funding arrangements for Huntingdonshire is the New Homes Bonus. This will equate to 27% of funding from Government and could end up being £3.4 million a year.

How the system works is still out for consultation. The scheme will mean that every new home built in the District will attract the equivalent of 6 years Council Tax. Looking likely that the District Council gets 80% and the County Council 20%. Parish and Town Councils get nothing.

On the DCLG website the following is said:

"In proposals published for consultation, the Minister has announced that the Government will match the council tax raised from new homes for the first six years through the New Homes Bonus. Councils and communities will work together to decide how to spend the extra funding - whether council tax discounts for local residents, boosting frontline services like rubbish collection or providing local facilities like swimming pools and leisure centres."

The interesting bit is: "Councils and communities will work together to decide how to spend the extra funding". Having seen all this what has HDC actually done. It has just put the money in its own budget. This New Homes Bonus scheme is there to allow communities to see something substantial for there commitment to have these new homes in their area. Huntingdonshire is a growth area. St Neots is a growth area. So what is St Neots getting out of this? Answer nothing.

Lets take an example. The new homes being developed behind Tesco. There are 220 new homes being built. Lets say the average Council Tax band for this development will be band C at £1,279. This would bring in an extra £281,380 a year in New Homes Bonus. On an 80/20 split this would bring in HDC £225,104 and CCC £56,276 a year for 6 years on top of the Council Tax they would also gain from the properties.

The total New Homes Bonus over 6 years would be:
HDC: £1,305,624
CCC: £337,656

Not insubstantial funds for just one small development. Again what is St Neots getting out of this money? So far nothing!


So far each Council is looking for the money as already spent. If St Neots wants more then we must ask both Councils and Councillors what are you going to spend the money on in St Neots? The New Homes Bonus is here for the local communities to help them accept development. If all this money goes into propping up already unsustainable budgets then all St Neots will be doing is accepting developments without any sight of this New Homes Bonus money. 


The danger with money only lasting for 6 years is Councils will become dependent on this flow of income. This would be wrong. The money has to be used on financially sustainable projects which will enhance St Neots. If HDC and CCC aren't held to account over how this New Homes Bonus is being spent in St Neots then this money will be frittered away on sustaining unsustainable spending by Councils.


HDC and CCC are supposed to be agreeing with communities how this money will be spent. Plans should already be in place to do this. 


With 5000 extra homes on the East of St Neots site this would bring in an extra £36,000,000 over the building period and six years beyond. That is something HDC currently wants for itself and St Neots to miss out on.

What about the others.....

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority has problems. In the 2010/11 Medium Term Plan, they were looking at a standstill grant.

With the grant announcement there will be a £973,000 cut in grant for 2011/12. The grant will be further cut in 2012/13 by £444,000. This is faster than the Fire authority expected.

They were looking at a 10% cut over 3 years. This is a 10% cut over 2 years.

Cambridgeshire County Council

Not too sure whether their figures are correct. This is because of the following statement:

So I've taken the figures as they are. This leads to two options. These are a far better than expected turnout with an extra £24 million for 2011/12 and an extra £23 million for 2012/13 OR this has problems with an extra cut of £12 million for 2011/12 and a cut of £14 million for 2012/13. 

 2011/12

2012/13

Eric Pickles says:

The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles says:

"Getting council business out in the open will revolutionise local government. Local people should be able to hold politicians and public bodies to account over how their hard earned cash is being spent and decisions made on their behalf. They can only do that effectively if they have the information they need at their fingertips."

This is a profound statement and, I believe, we should be hold not only the Communities Secretary to his new standard AND local government to this new standard. All three levels of local Government, County, District and Town must be held to this standard. At the moment they are all woefully deficient. 

County Council: I find it very hard to find information on many of the activities of this monster. Too often the information is buried. I tried to find out the budget for 2010/11 but had trouble all the way through. Also there are cuts being made. Is there a section on the website on the options? Of course not. The County Council doesn't want to know our views on the cuts.

District Council: A very secretive organisation. The Working Group or Working Party is the secretive method the Council uses to keep information out of the public domain. Information that comes before these secret groups remains secret. Not what Eric Pickles wants! Agendas/Minutes and Reports for these secret meetings aren't published.

St Neots Town Council: In theory this Council shouldn't need to do much. Accounts payable are public documents and can be published with each agenda. There is the problem. The Town Council isn't very good at publishing information, like Agendas, Minutes and associated reports. The useless Planning Committee has agenda and minutes published very quickly. The Council and other committees are either not published or very late.

All these councils like their secrecy. There is a Government culture which puts secrecy first. These are bodies to which many of us don't have a choice over. All levels of Government need to embrace openness and change from the culture of secrecy. The example of local government compliance with Freedom of Information is not a good one. Local Government has blocked and blocked information it doesn't want to be published and there is no real way of making Councils do this. I feel local government will carry on this practice for a ever and a day because Councils are there for themselves and not their residents.

Hard Times, Hard Choice - What Options?

Having received a magazine from the Town Council. Another from the District I now get one from the County Council. Well part from the CCC. Much of the middle was from the NHS.

On page 3 Council Leader Jill Tuck says: "This edition, we focus on our budget and a tough set of decisions, created by central government’s need to cut public spending."


The first question I have to ask is: where is the focus in on CCC's budget and the tough set of decisions? Apart from a small piece on Page 6 saying: "The Council had a budget ‘gap’of just under £16 million for the coming financial year, so savings have had to be made." there isn't much else.

The second question is: where are the options? Time and again the District and County Councils are informing us that cuts are on the way but nothing about what could be cut.

At least I can read this magazine on-line. Unlike HDC or SNTC which don't have their publications on-line.

Cuts are going to happen. But where the axe is going to cut is a secret.

BAM Nuttall angered at release of report! - Why?

In this weeks News and Crier there is a piece about BAM Nuttall being angered that Cambridgeshire County Council released a report. Why are they angered? This is a project paid out of taxpayers money and we, the people, should be told what is being done for us. Too many contracts are kept secret for "commercial reasons" though these reasons are rarely expanded upon.

The Conservatives at national level want these contracts to be published. I find it a pity that CCC is selectively publishing information rather than just publishing everything.

The 2010 Political Gnome Awards Evening

Welcome to the St Neots Gnomes Evening

There has been intensive musings over who should receive each award and so we start the evening off with the best local newspaper. 

Best Local Newspaper: 1. News and Crier 2. Hunts Post.

And the winner is: News and Crier. 

Moving onto the next category the Best MP for St Neots. Unfortunately no nominations we received so no winner of this award.

Best MP:
No Award Made This Year.

Next is the award for Best Town Councillor. After much reflection it has been decided to make the award.

Best Town Councillor: 1. Steve van de Kerkhove. 2. Barry Chapman

And the winner is: Steve van de Kerkhove

The next category is best District Councillor. There are two nominations but the committee has be decided not to make an award this year.

Best District Councillor: 1. Cllr Gordon Thorpe 2. Cllr Andrew Gilbert

No award given.

Moving to the controversial category of best political scandal of 2009. There are many different scandals but only 3 were nominated.

Best Political Scandal: 1. St Neots Town Council First Damning Report. 2. Jonathan Djanogly paying back £25,000. 3. St Neots Town Council Second Damning Report.

And the winner is: St Neots Town Council for the first damning audit report of 2009.

Now we have the next category which the between the newly elected Catherine Hutton and Ken Churchill

Best County Councillor: 1. Catherine Hutton. 2. Ken Churchill

And the winner is: Catherine Hutton

Moving onto the next category. The Committee decided after reviewing the category and nominations to change the title of the category. Notable is the HDC missing much to do with the budget deficit in District Wide but St Neots Town Council and the Priorities magazine missed two damning reports into the Town Council.

Best Council Communication Propaganda: 1. St Neots Town Council. 2. Huntingdon District Council. 3. Cambridgeshire County Council.

And the winner is: St Neots Town Council.

Special Awards Nominations:

For wasting money: 1. HDC on spending £573,000 doing up toilets and then closing them down. 2. Spending £2,800 on leaflets about Djanogly from Parliamentary expenses that have yet to be delivered.

Winner: Huntingdonshire District Council for wasting money on toilets.

Local website award: 1. St Neots Conservatives 2. St Neots Liberal Democrats.

Winner: St Neots Liberal Democrats for still having their main page written in 2008

For not resigning after a scandal: 1. Jonathan Djanogly for his expenses. 2. Cllr Derek Giles for two damning reports into the Town Council.

Winner: Cllr Derek Giles for his leadership of the Town Council which ended up in two damning audit reports.

Local Council websites: 1. St Neots Town Council  2. Huntingdonshire District Council

Winner: St Neots Town Council for taking the site down and not updating the site for what seems ages.

Best Local election leaflet during 2009 local elections: 1. Conservatives  2. Liberal Democrats

Winner: Liberal Democrats for their leaflet County Election leaflet.

Well that is it. The first award ceremony has come to the end. Good night and god bless.

Just one political leaflet received last month

These are all the delivers, other than with the post, that ended up on my doormat during February. This time I got one political leaflet, the first since June 2009, from the Liberal Democrats. I do realise the smaller parties do have funding issues but that is why they are small parties. The Conservatives have an MP and run CCC and HDC. They are also in opposition on SNTC.

Not one jot from the Conservatives. Nor has the Djanogly taxpayer funded leaflet got to my doorstep.

The St Neots Gnomes Nominations 2010

Welcome to the St Neots Gnomes

The first ever political awards will be made for the St Neots Gnome awards. The nominations have been made in the following categories:

Best Local Newspaper: 1. News and Crier 2. Hunts Post.

Best MP: No Nomination received.

Best Town Councillor: 1. Steve van de Kerkhove. 2. Barry Chapman

Best District Councillor: 1. Cllr Gordon Thorpe 2. Cllr Andrew Gilbert

Best Political Scandal: 1. St Neots Town Council First Damning Report. 2. Jonathan Djanogly paying back £25,000. 3. St Neots Town Council Second Damning Report

Best County Councillor: 1. Catherine Hutton. 2. Ken Churchill

Best Council Communication: 1. St Neots Town Council. 2. Huntingdon District Council. 3. Cambridgeshire County Council.

Special Award Nominations:

For wasting money: 1. HDC on spending £573,000 doing up toilets and then closing them down. 2. Spending £2,800 on leaflets about Djanogly from Parliamentary expenses that have yet to be delivered.

Local website award: 1. St Neots Conservatives 2. St Neots Liberal Democrats.

For not resigning after a scandal: 1. Jonathan Djanogly for his expenses. 2. Cllr Derek Giles for two damning reports by external auditors.

Local Council websites: 1. St Neots Town Council  2. Huntingdonshire District Council

Best Local election leaflet during 2009 local elections: 1. Conservatives  2. Liberal Democrats

The awards will be held on 7th March 2010.

Likely St Neots Council Tax increases.

With 2010/11 Council Tax (CT) setting getting towards its final stage I thought I would take a look at the likely final outcome. These are the Band D amounts. Band D represents the percentage increases so whichever Band your property is in these are the increases. I have divided up the Council Tax into their constituent amounts. I have three different totals as two annexed areas will be joining SNTC area on 1st April 2010.

St Neots: 2.53% increase. This is smaller than the 2.95% sub total because SNTC was able to cut its portion of the CT with all the new money from the annexed areas.

ex Eynesbury Hardwicke: On 1st April 2010 the Town Ward of Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish is annexed. CT payers currently pay zero in the Parish portion. On joining SNTC they will liable for SNTC CT rates. To go from zero to £84.24 (Band D) is an infinite percentage. All this extra money SNTC gets has gone mainly to cover increased spending and some to reduce the CT.

Love's Farm: On 1st April 2010 Love's Farm part of St Neots Rural Parish Council is annexed. CT payers at Band D will see there current Parish CT of £16.95 rise to the SNTC rate of £84.24. This represents a 397% rise. All this extra money SNTC gets has gone mainly to cover increased spending and some to reduce the CT.

County Council looking at 3% rise in Council Tax.

In a series of reports to the Cabinet (Link here) the Conservative controlled council is proposing to increase the Council Tax by 3%. The County Council is the major part of the Council Tax Total.

The tables below are taken from a report and is in MS Word.

The first table shows the amount a 3% increase has on the CCC portion of the Council Tax.

The next table shows the amount that has had to be cut/saved to get this budget to equate to a 3% rise. The £15.976 million of savings equates to 6.7% cut in Council Tax.

This table shows the forecast for spending over the next 5 years. This shows the priority sector is going to be Community and Adult services.

This table shows how the budgets are going to rise and fall over the 5 year period. This graphically shows which sector is going to loose and which will gain.

A 1% cut in the precept = £2,375,165.41. To make the 3% rise go away it would mean further cuts of £7,125,496.23. This is on top of the £15.9 already cut/saved.

The County Council is looking towards some massive spending cuts. The forecast is for a basic 1.1% rise a year over the 5 year period. From the forecast I take it the Conservatives have already decided on what is important. Those who pay for the majority of services haven't been asked. There needs to be a conversation between the rulers and the ruled. On current form I don't see that happening in St. Neots.