Liverpool council leader Joe Anderson reveals his "pay cut" to become full time leader
Liverpool council leader Joe Anderson has revealed he will lose ã19,000 by becoming a full time leader.
He's just been on the Phillips phone-in and told listeners that had he kept his social worker job in Sefton he would have kept his ã40,000 salary.
Add to that the ã21,000 he was entitled to as leader, and his basic of ã10,000 for being a councillor he would have been on a total of ã71,000.
Under the proposals he will be on a total of ã52,000, a ã19,000 pay cut if you like.
As leader of the opposition he was already on ã61,000-a-year because of an allowance of ã11,000 that he was getting for that position.
If the allowance for leader was not doubled Cllr Anderson would be looking at losing ã40,000.
Liberal Democrat Richard Kemp says he should have been willing to do that if he wanted to go full time. He says all councillors end up out of pocket when they are voted in and that simply Joe Anderson should have lived with it. He calculates that he personally has lost more than ã750,000 because of the time he has sacrificed not doing his "day job" as a regeneration consultant in his more than 27 years as a councillor.
He described the proposed increase in the leader's allowance as "morally corrupt".
I suspect this one is going to rumble on for a while...
15 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 »
I remember the days when it was considered an honour to represent local people without demanding a fat cat's salary. Sure, no one should be out of pocket for voluntary work but Anderson is taking the Michael !
mrsgillian smith it is you who is taking the Michael! ã40k is about the same salary as an experienced teacher, social worker or firefighter. Are they fat cats too?
I find the comments made by Bradley and Kemp to be out of order. Anderson is doing the right thing for a City with a ã1.3 Billion budget. To take the city forward we need a full-time leader not a part-time fire fighter. Anderson is giving up a senior role to deliver a better City for our residents and he should be given credit for it. He has also made it clear he will be leading the Council NOT Officers.
Bradley is worried because if he ever took control again he may have to follow Anderson's lead and give up his job. Given that Lib-Dem support is falling away you can hardly see Bradley getting of his fire engine.
mrsgilliansmith's comment is laughable. Didn't you read the article Gillian? Cllr Anderson WILLL be out of pocket! He WILL be earning less than he would have done if he'd kept on the way things were.
If he wanted, he could have stayed part time as leader, and pocketed a cool ã71,000. But he put his city before his wallet, and accepted a cut.
Well said Cllr Kemp !
By the way, if it's OK not to pay self-aggrandising "cabinet" members assistants wouldn't any saving from that have been better put towards trying to save the Fairfield Centre - a far more worthy cause than giving Joepoleon the wherewithal to strut around council offices all day counting paperclips.
As a full time leader of the council, regardless of which party is in power, it must be worth in excess of ã100,000. If not then why are we paying in excess of ã200,000 for a Chief Executive? If anybody's pay needs reconsidering it will be the new Chief Exec' of the City Council.
Money can easily be saved on not using outside consultants, 'grantrepeneurs' and carpetbaggers in general who have been allowed to bleed this City dry.
Here's a novel idea! How about local jobs for local people and opportunity for local businesses to supply goods and services to their own City. Or is that too radical?
This is a message for all political parties.
The press release from Warren is so sad and so bitter...it reads like a little lad is writing it.. a little sad lad who has had his toys taken away and is wailing 'its not fair....' its not fair....' if I cant have my toys no one else should have any.....mummy mummy mummy..instead of mummy he is seeking help and emotional support elsewhere outside his marriage. Fair enough, thats his business, but very unhappily he is making a fool of himself in public because he can't see how it looks to others. How hard for his children, work mates and so on to see it happen, when he is not able to see what he is doing to himself.
Look- He was NOT a full time leader, thank goodness, and never claimed to be. Joe, on the other hand , made it quite clear for two years that he would stand as a full time leader, and give up his job. Of course he has to be paid accordingly. Nothing wrong there, surely?
Warren, just take care of yourself,,,you seem to be on the verge of a breakdown,,,and thats not a good place to be.
I've heard several comments over the last few weeks about Warren's mental health. I know a lot of people are concerned - some of whom are supposedly close to him personally and have privately discussed whether its all getting a bit much for him.
As a former resident of the Boot Estate I can personally vouch for Cllr Richard Kemps moral corruption and incompetence
I see what Stan says.
It would not surprise me that it wasn't Councillor Green but a person she was close to who had devised that reprehensible photo.
LGA Deputy Chair ã30k?
Councillor ã10k?
District Committee Chair ã6k?
LGA Peer Reviewer ã200 per day??
No wonder some Lib Dems in this city are complaining at Joe's increase. Eh Dicky?
I see Stevie "Boys" Radford is angling for a pay rise too !
very subjective comment from mr kemp
i remember the phrase morally corrupt being levelled at the liberal group on the city council during the mid 80s - im sure it was the then deputy leader who used to wheel it out on a regular basis-
no change i can see in 25 years in any of them and Mr Kemp should be challenged to justify that remark
No surprise to see some worrying parochial bull' within the above comments, also based on a thoroughly unsound, overly simplistic application of "if..., then..." logic.
exterior painting nj...