Is it time local councillors were paid more?
Yesterday I spent a good while perusing through Liverpool Council's statement of accounts.
There were a couple of things of interest in there. One thing I noticed was the amount collectively paid to councillors in allowances over the past year ã1.2m.
The accounts also give a glimpse into the level of pay rises currently been given out at the council. The number of officials earning between ã110,000 and ã120,000 more than quadrupled in the year from three to 13.
In total the numbers earning more than ã50,000 increased from 420 to 485 (295 of the top earners were teachers - although none earned more than ã120,000).
No councillors would make it into this list based on their allowances, the highest "paid" is Liverpool Council leader Warren Bradley who gets the basic allowance of ã10,000 plus ã23,000 special responsibility allowance as leader.
This evening I then stumbled across a column written by Larry Neild (formally of this parish) about local democracy.
He makes this point:
We used to have democracy in Liverpool, during a time when the councillors we elected as the people's representatives met, at the Town Hall, to make decisions on our behalf. If they took too many unpopular decisions, we had a remedy: we'd chuck them out on election day.
Then there was a bloodless coup and the officers took over. The dawning of the new millennium ushered in a fresh era in which democracy became virtually extinct, not just in Liverpool but in town halls everywhere. In the 21st century version of "democracy", the city is run by a cabinet or executive board, and, once a cabinet member makes a decision, it might as well be set in stone.
As a political correspondent I spend a lot of my time speaking to councillors and despite the collective bill topping ã1.2m (there are 90 in Liverpool) I think on the whole they are underpaid.
The basic allowance in Liverpool is ã10,000 a year. Members of the ruling executive board get an extra ã14,000.
Given what officials earn is there a case for paying councillors more?
If so, an easy way to achieve this would be to reduce the total number, say by a third. Then basic allowances could be increased a third.
I'm not making this point to give councillors more pay for the sheer sake of it. The end result could justify the rise.
Here is my reasoning. If a councillor is doing the job properly it takes up an inordinate amount of time and therefore they don't get paid enough. But not all councillors work as hard as others. Upping the pay would make it more competitive to become a councillor and also attract people who might not otherwise get involved in local democracy.
Many councillors sacrifice career progression to carry out council duties. Some have understanding employers who allow them time off, others don't.
The fact is being a local councillor is now semi-professionalised. But is it time their number was reduced and they were paid more?
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
Hi Dave
When I became interested in becoming a Councillor in 2007 I didn't even know you got an allowance. I was just happy to get involved and speak up on local issues. I am one of the few Councillors who still hold down a full time job as well as being a Councillor. I get up everyday at 05.30am and do an hour and a half of casework before I do eight hours in the office. I usually get home at 5.30pm then out again most evenings for meetings or something council related at 6-9pm. I reckon I do approx 20-25 hours a week as a Councillor. Everyone would like more money but to be honest, I am happy with what I receive and if the allowances were removed tomorrow, I'd still do it!
Don't forget school governors! Something like a third to a half of a council's budget is directly delegated to schools where it becomes the responsibility of unpaid governors. Why pay councillors a lot for managing half the budget and governors nothing for managing the other half?
I have never heard of councillor sue taylor. but i would suggest that anyone who gets up at 5.30 am to do casework needs their heads examining. they must be certifiably insane. her professed lifestyle is absurd. hardly reassuring to know that we are being represented by obsessive nutters, who spend all their spare time 'being a councillor.' i would rather she had two hours extra in bed, or walking the dog. she would then be more in touch with her constituents. i am now going to get some shut eye, so that i will awake refreshed and ready for a day carrying out affairs of state.