We’ll cut council ‘fat cat’ pay, vows UKIP at launch of Carlisle elections campaign
by Julian Whittle Political editor
Last updated at 13:25, Wednesday, 18 April 2012
The UK Independence Party is pledging to cut the “fat-cat” pay of council officials.
Have your say
I'm starting to get a bit fed-up of reading posts accusing A of being a councillor, B of being a councillor and 'attack posts'. They are not conducive to the smooth running of the boards or considered debate.
Therefore, from now 1. ANY posts deemed to be an attack on an individual will not be released. No editing will take place. 2. ANY posts that claim or suggest a contributor is a councillor will not be released. 3. ANY posts submitted by anyone WE suspect of being a councillor will not be released. We hope any councillors who participate here will use their real names and not hide behind the veil of anonymity.The terms for commenting will be amended accordingly.Ian Online editor
Posted by Ian on
23 April 2012 at 20:32
For BM - http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPlocalManifesto2012.pdf you can also check Facebook: UKIP Local Carlisle. It is the policy of UKIP to considerably reduce the allowances of ALL councillors and to do with the money exactly what you suggest. ie create new jobs. Hope this helps.
Posted by carliol on
23 April 2012 at 13:51
Thank you BM for enlightening Mr Owen anyone who thinks Â£100,000/annum plus expenses is not a lot of money should look at the salary for Prime minister and other cabinet salaries for comparison. I am no lover of any political party since Tony Blairs coup in 1994 but we do need to stop thinking Â£8400/month isn't a HUGE salary!
Posted by Craig on
23 April 2012 at 09:31
"Under the Council code of conduct, a Councillor is forbidden to use pseudonyms or impersonate another person in emails, forums and social networking sites. Its a serious offense."
Oh really? Can you point us all to this code of conduct, and the part which you claim above?
Posted by Anon on
23 April 2012 at 08:14
"Can someone tell me what on earth Jim & Craig are wittering about?"
Well, Mr. Owen, if it helps unravel this complicated thread for you, it would seem that Jim (and twin Anon/anon) is defending the salary of Dr. Gooding given that the job of chief executive is multi-faceted and complicated and therefore worthy of such remuneration. Craig would seem to be congratulating Hilary for posting a comment which would seem to endorse UKIP's position on so-called 'fat-cat' salaries. Of course, I suspect may actually be asking what Jim and I are wittering on about which would seem to indicate a lapse in concentration immediately prior to your post.While you are here, I asked in another thread how UKIP proposed to improve the city council and how UKIP's national policies were relevant to the running of a local council but sadly no reply was forthcoming. So, aside from pledging to cut Dr. Gooding and others' salaries, what concrete proposals does UKIP have that will improve council services and the running of Carlisle City Council in general? I can't seem to find any manifesto online. Please do provide a link or something.Also, if saving taxpayers' money by slashing management salaries is so fundamentally important to UKIP and is the cornerstone of UKIP's policy for Carlisle, would Mr. Owen and his fellow candidates consider foregoing their allowances? Assuming all eleven candidates were returned, that would save the beleaguered Carlisle taxpayer about 50k per annum and create a couple of jobs in an understaffed sector of the council, say poo-collection for example.I hope that you can provide some simple answers here Mr. Owen; the questions are relatively straightforward. Incidentally, in an earlier post, you misspelled 'racist' by apparently fusing it with 'fascist', thereby inventing the word 'rascist'. Was this slip Freudian or just ignorant? The voters need to know what calibre of candidate is standing.
Posted by BM on
22 April 2012 at 21:14
Anon. A better question is how many people would be willing and qualified enough to do the job at 10/20/30k less, assuming he wasn't amenable to a pay-cut? I'm pretty certain there are a lot of talented, qualified people out there who would give their right arm for any job paying over Â£50k a year, let alone Â£95k plus numerous other benefits.
The debate is ultimately whether we are getting value for money as taxpayers. I don't think are, many agree. If his wage is the lowest in the country for his role, doesn't that say more for the state of the country?
Posted by Robert C on
22 April 2012 at 19:30
Under the Council code of conduct, a Councillor is forbidden to use pseudonyms or impersonate another person in emails, forums and social networking sites. Its a serious offense.
Posted by Dr Sov on
22 April 2012 at 16:49
To James. Â£95,000 a year is not obscene. It might be obscene if there was lots of people earning that in the organisation. But there isnt. It is one person, the top man.
According to the Telegraph table of council chief executives pay he is the lowest paid council chief executive in the country.Carlisle City Council spends Â£17 million a year directly and Â£70 million a year indirectly. The chief executive of an organisation that size will make decisions on a daily/weekly basis that could cost or save hundreds of thousands of pounds. Having people who are good at their jobs (and Dr Gooding is good at his job) is essential to make sure your hard earned money is spent correctly.
Posted by anon on
22 April 2012 at 12:41
Councillor anon - why are you defending these obscene salaries paid for by me? I work hard for my monthly salary & I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT BEING WASTED ON THESE PEOPLE!!!
And that includes you coucnillors!!!It is worrying you are so out of touch with reality/every day life & youre missing the whole point/flavour of this thread.
Posted by James on
22 April 2012 at 08:53
Jim: Well, at last you have finally answered the question of whether you are a councillor or not. I haven't been alone in thinking that you were but I am surprised that it has taken you so long to clarify it given the plethora of allusions to you being one. One wonders why you chose this particular moment to issue the denial when for many months you simply ignored those that had assumed you were. One wonders also about the strength of someone's 'word' on a quasi-anonymous internet forum. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt in this instance though and look forward to many further insightful contributions from you on the workings, policies and achievements of this council. If, as is likely, the pendulum swings, your commentary will be most interesting and something to look forward to.