- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@yorkpress
Follow us on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
The Press, York
Like us on Facebook
Debating the rise (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Debating the rise
11:44am Tuesday 18th September 2012 in Letters By Readers' letters
I AM becoming tired of Matthew Laverack’s continued carping and pontificating on matters he knows very little about.
His contribution of September 17 suggests that all City of York councillors are on “a nice little earner” and should not be accepting any increases in their allowances as suggested by the independent remuneration panel. Whether we do or not accept the recommended increases remains to be seen, but I think I would speak for all shades of political opinion on the council that the “nice little earner” for a councillor on a basic allowance, doing their job, works out at a rate of pay less than the minimum wage.
So come on, Mr Laverack – have the guts to put your head above the parapet and seek election as an independent next time local elections are held. I can’t think you would do the job and regard your reward as a “nice little earner”.
No doubt this letter will generate a response from Mr Laverack, but I will state here and now that you will not get any further correspondence from me on the matter.
Coun David Horton , Acomb ward.
• CITY of York Council is always pleading poverty, telling us which services will have to be cut and telling us months in advance that our council tax will have to be increased next year.
Then I read in The Press of September 13 that councilors may be awarded pay rises of nearly £3,000 a year.
When you realise there are 47 councillors, that is a lot of money. Could someone please tell me exactly what they do to merit that amount?
From what I read in the paper they hire consultants to decide where and when to save money. I’m sure there are many people who could do their job for half that amount.
Mrs Margaret Mason, Anthea Drive, Huntington , York.
Comments(42)
Oaklands Resident
says...
12:52pm Tue 18 Sep 12
They range from a hike of £2,585 (basic allowance) to a total rise of £8,396 (27%) which would be received by the Council Leader.
In total it would mean that the taxpayers bill for Councillor pay would increase from £458,000 a year to over £700,000 .
I had rather expected that Cllr Horton and his chums would have by now issued statements saying that they couldn't possibly accept such increases in the current economic climate!
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
1:02pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Matthew Laverack cares more about York and it's people than the free-loading, self-serving Labour councillors dictating to York people. It's time Horton and his motley crew were shown the door !!!
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
1:10pm Tue 18 Sep 12
What does Coun Simpson-Laing do for her annual remuneration of £24,097.50 plus expenses ? She delivers a few leaflets; writes a few letters; attends a few meetings; tweets criticisms and sacrcastic comments against the coalition government; and tows the left-wing part line; whilst no housing gets built in York !
She is a total failure, and needs to be booted out asap !
Jezreel
says...
1:53pm Tue 18 Sep 12
"It's time Horton and his motley crew were shown the door !!!”
Well Matthew, why don't YOU show them the door. That is exactly what David Horton is inviting you to do. If you really believe all you say in your two Scarlet Pimple postings above, you should have no problem in getting the voters to rally to you if you stand for Council.
Isn't it put up or shut up time?
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
2:00pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:It is up to the people of York to show them the door.
Matthew says - "It's time Horton and his motley crew were shown the door !!!” Well Matthew, why don't YOU show them the door. That is exactly what David Horton is inviting you to do. If you really believe all you say in your two Scarlet Pimple postings above, you should have no problem in getting the voters to rally to you if you stand for Council. Isn't it put up or shut up time?
You regularly attack Matthew Laverack on this website, inviting him to stand, and then Coun Horton writes a letter doing the same - bit of a coincidence ?
Are you Coun David Horton ?
Jezreel
says...
2:05pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
2:12pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Coun David Horton wrote: "I AM becoming tired of Matthew Laverack’s continued carping and pontificating on matters he knows very little about."
Not half as tired as York housebuilders are of hearing Coun Simpson-Laing carping and pontificating about housebuilding, which she clearly knows very little about also !
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
2:45pm Tue 18 Sep 12
What does anyone need to know about being a councillor, or a banker or a candlestick-maker, when it comes down to criticising a 27% rise in Coun James Alexander's allowance, at a time when most people are feeling the effects of the cuts and the recession ?
Coun Horton's arrogance is appalling, as is that of many of the Labour hierarchy; Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett and Crisp to name but a few !
Sack the lot !
jimmy120883
says...
3:52pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Dont make me laugh!
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
5:18pm Tue 18 Sep 12
jimmy120883 wrote:York Council's ruling Labour group are the biggest joke. What have they achieved ?
"Matthew Laverack cares more about York and it's people" Dont make me laugh!
Coun Alexander was asked this on twitter, and his reply was :
15 Sep James Alexander @jmalexander1982
@ZackAdamCohen Fair point - here is a starter: Reversed £1m of cuts, attracted John Lewis, bringing an insurance company head office...
Since when did the Labour group 'attract John Lewis' ?
Wasn't it Oakgate who did this, and wasn't it during the Lib-Dem's administration ?
Same old Labour - always lying ? !!!
capt spaulding
says...
5:29pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:Any idiot can stand for council proven by what we have here. Its like .......sorry teachers but if you cant do it, teach it.
Matthew says -
"It's time Horton and his motley crew were shown the door !!!”
Well Matthew, why don't YOU show them the door. That is exactly what David Horton is inviting you to do. If you really believe all you say in your two Scarlet Pimple postings above, you should have no problem in getting the voters to rally to you if you stand for Council.
Isn't it put up or shut up time?
Its **** hot in the self employment kitchen. You mess up and your doomed. Unlike coun members and teachers. With you lot its just carry on regardless and before you go there yes you failed me . My spelling proves it.
Jezreel
says...
5:52pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:Sack the lot !
Like all York residents who care about the city and it's people - Matthew Laverack is entitled to say what he thinks.
What does anyone need to know about being a councillor, or a banker or a candlestick-maker, when it comes down to criticising a 27% rise in Coun James Alexander's allowance, at a time when most people are feeling the effects of the cuts and the recession ?
Coun Horton's arrogance is appalling, as is that of many of the Labour hierarchy; Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett and Crisp to name but a few !
Sack the lot !
How are you going to do that Matthew, they are elected. You on the other hand, represent nobody but yourself.
Inconvenient this democracy isn't it?
You are unwilling to stand for election in case of a (likely) electoral humiliation, so you carp from the sidelines.
bolero
says...
7:00pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
7:51pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:I am not Matthew Laverack - how many more times do I need to tell you ?
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote: Like all York residents who care about the city and it's people - Matthew Laverack is entitled to say what he thinks. What does anyone need to know about being a councillor, or a banker or a candlestick-maker, when it comes down to criticising a 27% rise in Coun James Alexander's allowance, at a time when most people are feeling the effects of the cuts and the recession ? Coun Horton's arrogance is appalling, as is that of many of the Labour hierarchy; Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett and Crisp to name but a few ! Sack the lot !Sack the lot ! How are you going to do that Matthew, they are elected. You on the other hand, represent nobody but yourself. Inconvenient this democracy isn't it? You are unwilling to stand for election in case of a (likely) electoral humiliation, so you carp from the sidelines.
I am a resident and councillors are public servants - they serve the electorate - that's me. I'm not satisfied with them (Labour group/leadership), and like many other York residents, I want them out. I hope others will vote against them at the next election. In the meanntime, we will 'carp' from the sidelines, and tell them how we feel !
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
7:55pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Will.I.Aint
says...
8:48pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
12:14am Wed 19 Sep 12
Will.I.Aint wrote:I'm sorry, that is not what is being said.
It’s simple, if you believe you have more popular support than those who you so often criticise then put your name on the ballot paper.
Labour are not popular. No one was claiming to be more popular than them. It is a fact that their decisions, policies and political game-playing have made them unpopular. It's no secret. You read about their mistakes on an almost daily basis. I'd list them, but, it would take me too long, and I'm tired.
Goodnight all ;-)
Will.I.Aint
says...
8:45am Wed 19 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:Well so far on this thread you have accused Mr Horton of cowardice, you have described him as, ‘hoity toity,’ and say his arrogance is appalling. You then went on to dismiss his party’s councillors as a free-loading motley crew who are self-serving and grasping. As usual you have an unhealthy dose of venom to direct at Councillor Simpson-Laing calling her, ‘a total failure who needs to be booted out.’ Throughout this repetitive tirade, directed at elected councillors, you constantly declare how unpopular they all are so my question to you is a simple one; if you believe that the majority of York’s voters agree with you why don’t you put your name on the ballot paper? Or is it all just background noise.
Will.I.Aint wrote:I'm sorry, that is not what is being said.
It’s simple, if you believe you have more popular support than those who you so often criticise then put your name on the ballot paper.
Labour are not popular. No one was claiming to be more popular than them. It is a fact that their decisions, policies and political game-playing have made them unpopular. It's no secret. You read about their mistakes on an almost daily basis. I'd list them, but, it would take me too long, and I'm tired.
Goodnight all ;-)
hugohackenbush
says...
10:13am Wed 19 Sep 12
Contantly we are being told that cuts are neccesary and we have to burden along.
Meanwhile our elected representatives spend money like its going out of fashion on pet projects wi fi etc new limos and a dreadful amount on a new civic HQ.
Now we are expected to stomach the news that they are to get a beyond inflation rise in pay.
Well were all in it together someone said. In it being up to the ankles in the brown messy stuff.
Jezreel
says...
10:33am Wed 19 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:This is looney tunes stuff, and we have been through it before.
Like Coun 'hoity toity' Horton, his Labour group have lost the plot. They are deeply unpopular with the residents of York, and Matthew Laverack's opinion is shared by many. Get them out !!!
Matthew, you say Labour is deeply unpopular, well who is voting for them? They have more council seats than all the other parties added together. David Horton, who you also say is unpopular has represented the same ward for about 25 years, maybe more. Same with Sonja Crisp and all the others.
If they are all so unpopular but keep getting elected then there is electoral fraud on a massive scale. If on the other hand this popularity has happened since the last election, then we need someone to lead the campaign against them and it will be a doddle.
Step forward Matthew Laverack
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:39am Wed 19 Sep 12
If Labour are still as popular as when they were elected, where is all the support for their mismanagement and flawed policies ?
The only supporters on these threads appear to be councillors using pseudonyms or council employees ? !!!!
Will.I.Aint
says...
10:59am Wed 19 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:I am not and never have been a councillor or a council employee. I do, like you, use a pseudonym in line with convention on internet forums. I have no idea if the Labour party are more or less popular than when they were elected, to be honest I don’t really care. As far as I’m concerned it’s hard to squeeze a fag paper between any of the major parties policies on the current financial crisis. What I don't like is when people make claims about their own or other peoples popularity which they cannot substantiate. Nor do I like the levels of personal abuse directed towards democratically elected representatives. It’s like the big boy in the school yard hurling abuse at someone then shouting everyone agrees with me!!!!
I would ask Jezreel and Will.I.Aint this:-
If Labour are still as popular as when they were elected, where is all the support for their mismanagement and flawed policies ?
The only supporters on these threads appear to be councillors using pseudonyms or council employees ? !!!!
capt spaulding
says...
11:00am Wed 19 Sep 12
In that he comes up against
Mr Laverack and his clients on many occasions and I have no doubt that he and his colleagues are put to a lot of extra work in ensuring things are done correctly and within the prescribed time limits.
Mr Laverack conducts himself on a professional level far above any thing Mr Horton can aspire to.
If you cant stand the heat ..........get out of the kitchen.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
1:57pm Wed 19 Sep 12
Will.I.Aint wrote:What about the levels of personal abuse they direct against Mr Laverack ? They have thicker skins than you think.
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote: I would ask Jezreel and Will.I.Aint this:- If Labour are still as popular as when they were elected, where is all the support for their mismanagement and flawed policies ? The only supporters on these threads appear to be councillors using pseudonyms or council employees ? !!!!I am not and never have been a councillor or a council employee. I do, like you, use a pseudonym in line with convention on internet forums. I have no idea if the Labour party are more or less popular than when they were elected, to be honest I don’t really care. As far as I’m concerned it’s hard to squeeze a fag paper between any of the major parties policies on the current financial crisis. What I don't like is when people make claims about their own or other peoples popularity which they cannot substantiate. Nor do I like the levels of personal abuse directed towards democratically elected representatives. It’s like the big boy in the school yard hurling abuse at someone then shouting everyone agrees with me!!!!
Still waiting for you to substantiate that they are popular. More importantly though, are they doing a good or a bad job ? Surely you care about the policies and decisions they make ?
Will.I.Aint
says...
3:12pm Wed 19 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:Why are you waiting for me to substantiate a claim I never made?
Will.I.Aint wrote:What about the levels of personal abuse they direct against Mr Laverack ? They have thicker skins than you think.
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote: I would ask Jezreel and Will.I.Aint this:- If Labour are still as popular as when they were elected, where is all the support for their mismanagement and flawed policies ? The only supporters on these threads appear to be councillors using pseudonyms or council employees ? !!!!I am not and never have been a councillor or a council employee. I do, like you, use a pseudonym in line with convention on internet forums. I have no idea if the Labour party are more or less popular than when they were elected, to be honest I don’t really care. As far as I’m concerned it’s hard to squeeze a fag paper between any of the major parties policies on the current financial crisis. What I don't like is when people make claims about their own or other peoples popularity which they cannot substantiate. Nor do I like the levels of personal abuse directed towards democratically elected representatives. It’s like the big boy in the school yard hurling abuse at someone then shouting everyone agrees with me!!!!
Still waiting for you to substantiate that they are popular. More importantly though, are they doing a good or a bad job ? Surely you care about the policies and decisions they make ?
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
4:33pm Wed 19 Sep 12
Will.I.Aint wrote:If you are so keen to defend them from alleged personal abuse, you must either support them, or at least have views on whether they are doing a good or bad job ?
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:Why are you waiting for me to substantiate a claim I never made?Will.I.Aint wrote:What about the levels of personal abuse they direct against Mr Laverack ? They have thicker skins than you think. Still waiting for you to substantiate that they are popular. More importantly though, are they doing a good or a bad job ? Surely you care about the policies and decisions they make ?Scarlet Pimpernel wrote: I would ask Jezreel and Will.I.Aint this:- If Labour are still as popular as when they were elected, where is all the support for their mismanagement and flawed policies ? The only supporters on these threads appear to be councillors using pseudonyms or council employees ? !!!!I am not and never have been a councillor or a council employee. I do, like you, use a pseudonym in line with convention on internet forums. I have no idea if the Labour party are more or less popular than when they were elected, to be honest I don’t really care. As far as I’m concerned it’s hard to squeeze a fag paper between any of the major parties policies on the current financial crisis. What I don't like is when people make claims about their own or other peoples popularity which they cannot substantiate. Nor do I like the levels of personal abuse directed towards democratically elected representatives. It’s like the big boy in the school yard hurling abuse at someone then shouting everyone agrees with me!!!!
I base my claim that they are unpopular on the amount of negative criticism they have received, after the numerous bad decisions they have made.
Jezreel
says...
4:54pm Wed 19 Sep 12
"I base my claim that they are unpopular on the amount of negative criticism they have received, after the numerous bad decisions they have made"
But Matthew, might that not be very same statement be levelled at you ? You attract a fair old bit of negative criticism, and unlike the labour group you have no electoral mandate.
Perhaps it is you, and not David Horton, who should be calling it a day
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:50pm Wed 19 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:But, I am not Matthew Laverack, am I ?
Matthew says
"I base my claim that they are unpopular on the amount of negative criticism they have received, after the numerous bad decisions they have made"
But Matthew, might that not be very same statement be levelled at you ? You attract a fair old bit of negative criticism, and unlike the labour group you have no electoral mandate.
Perhaps it is you, and not David Horton, who should be calling it a day
Let's see how many more mistakes the Labour administration make, and if they continue to fail with issues like housing. I bet they will attract much more flak than Laverack !!!
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
12:53am Thu 20 Sep 12
Mr Laverack did not suggest that 'all City of York councillors are on a nice little earner'.
His letter said, People who seek public office should do so because they wish to serve the community, and not because they will enjoy a nice little earner funded by taxpayers'
This is the problem with York's Labour councillors; always spinning and twisting things.
Coun Horton should learn to read letters more carefully, and quote them accurately, rather than making mischief by misquoting them.
He should also write a public apology to Mr Laverack.
This is very poor and shameful conduct by the ex-Lord Mayor.
sonorbloke
says...
10:08am Thu 20 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:Horton's comment is a very good paraphrase of what is in ML's letter and it's exactly what he's implying.
I wish to correct Coun Horton, and would ask him to read Matthew laverack's letter again. Mr Laverack did not suggest that 'all City of York councillors are on a nice little earner'.His letter said, People who seek public office should do so because they wish to serve the community, and not because they will enjoy a nice little earner funded by taxpayers'This is the problem with York's Labour councillors; always spinning and twisting things. Coun Horton should learn to read letters more carefully, and quote them accurately, rather than making mischief by misquoting them. He should also write a public apology to Mr Laverack. This is very poor and shameful conduct by the ex-Lord Mayor.
You can't even quote Horton properly, the only quote he uses is the words 'nice little earner'.
There's nothing to spin or twist. Not a labour supporter in any way but it's clear that ML's letter is meant to imply that councillors generally, ie all councillors, are on a 'nice little earner'.
Whatever he should apologise for that the administration has done Horton has nothing to apologise for in summarising the letter.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
11:47am Thu 20 Sep 12
sonorbloke wrote:Sorry, you are wrong. Read his letter again.
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote: I wish to correct Coun Horton, and would ask him to read Matthew laverack's letter again. Mr Laverack did not suggest that 'all City of York councillors are on a nice little earner'.Horton's comment is a very good paraphrase of what is in ML's letter and it's exactly what he's implying. You can't even quote Horton properly, the only quote he uses is the words 'nice little earner'. There's nothing to spin or twist. Not a labour supporter in any way but it's clear that ML's letter is meant to imply that councillors generally, ie all councillors, are on a 'nice little earner'. Whatever he should apologise for that the administration has done Horton has nothing to apologise for in summarising the letter.His letter said, People who seek public office should do so because they wish to serve the community, and not because they will enjoy a nice little earner funded by taxpayers'This is the problem with York's Labour councillors; always spinning and twisting things. Coun Horton should learn to read letters more carefully, and quote them accurately, rather than making mischief by misquoting them. He should also write a public apology to Mr Laverack. This is very poor and shameful conduct by the ex-Lord Mayor.
He says, (and I will cut and paste directly from his letter):;
"His contribution of September 17 suggests that all City of York councillors are on “a nice little earner”
ML's letter does not infer this at all. It merely warns that this should not be the motive for seeking office.
It's amazing how many Labour supporters jump to defend these councillors, then claim not to be Labour supporters ?
Never seen 'sonorbloke' before - who are you ? I think I know, judging by the style of your comment, and the fact that you haven't EVEN read Horton's letter properly - not very handy are you ?
petethefeet
says...
12:27pm Thu 20 Sep 12
The problem though was so eloquently put my Sir Winston Churchill when he said "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. "
sonorbloke
says...
3:40pm Thu 20 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:If you think you know who I am then you're very wrong. You don't know me at all, I can guarantee you that. Never voted labour in my life, and never would.
sonorbloke wrote:Sorry, you are wrong. Read his letter again. He says, (and I will cut and paste directly from his letter):; "His contribution of September 17 suggests that all City of York councillors are on “a nice little earner” ML's letter does not infer this at all. It merely warns that this should not be the motive for seeking office. It's amazing how many Labour supporters jump to defend these councillors, then claim not to be Labour supporters ? Never seen 'sonorbloke' before - who are you ? I think I know, judging by the style of your comment, and the fact that you haven't EVEN read Horton's letter properly - not very handy are you ?Scarlet Pimpernel wrote: I wish to correct Coun Horton, and would ask him to read Matthew laverack's letter again. Mr Laverack did not suggest that 'all City of York councillors are on a nice little earner'.Horton's comment is a very good paraphrase of what is in ML's letter and it's exactly what he's implying. You can't even quote Horton properly, the only quote he uses is the words 'nice little earner'. There's nothing to spin or twist. Not a labour supporter in any way but it's clear that ML's letter is meant to imply that councillors generally, ie all councillors, are on a 'nice little earner'. Whatever he should apologise for that the administration has done Horton has nothing to apologise for in summarising the letter.His letter said, People who seek public office should do so because they wish to serve the community, and not because they will enjoy a nice little earner funded by taxpayers'This is the problem with York's Labour councillors; always spinning and twisting things. Coun Horton should learn to read letters more carefully, and quote them accurately, rather than making mischief by misquoting them. He should also write a public apology to Mr Laverack. This is very poor and shameful conduct by the ex-Lord Mayor.
The difference between implying and inferring in this instance is nit picking in the extreme. If ML doesn't think that councillors are on a nice little earner then he wouldn't use that language to describe why he feels councillors want to get into office.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
4:03pm Thu 20 Sep 12
sonorbloke wrote:But, Horton said 'ALL' councillors - that's exaggeration in the extreme !!!
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:If you think you know who I am then you're very wrong. You don't know me at all, I can guarantee you that. Never voted labour in my life, and never would. The difference between implying and inferring in this instance is nit picking in the extreme. If ML doesn't think that councillors are on a nice little earner then he wouldn't use that language to describe why he feels councillors want to get into office.sonorbloke wrote:Sorry, you are wrong. Read his letter again. He says, (and I will cut and paste directly from his letter):; "His contribution of September 17 suggests that all City of York councillors are on “a nice little earner” ML's letter does not infer this at all. It merely warns that this should not be the motive for seeking office. It's amazing how many Labour supporters jump to defend these councillors, then claim not to be Labour supporters ? Never seen 'sonorbloke' before - who are you ? I think I know, judging by the style of your comment, and the fact that you haven't EVEN read Horton's letter properly - not very handy are you ?Scarlet Pimpernel wrote: I wish to correct Coun Horton, and would ask him to read Matthew laverack's letter again. Mr Laverack did not suggest that 'all City of York councillors are on a nice little earner'.Horton's comment is a very good paraphrase of what is in ML's letter and it's exactly what he's implying. You can't even quote Horton properly, the only quote he uses is the words 'nice little earner'. There's nothing to spin or twist. Not a labour supporter in any way but it's clear that ML's letter is meant to imply that councillors generally, ie all councillors, are on a 'nice little earner'. Whatever he should apologise for that the administration has done Horton has nothing to apologise for in summarising the letter.His letter said, People who seek public office should do so because they wish to serve the community, and not because they will enjoy a nice little earner funded by taxpayers'This is the problem with York's Labour councillors; always spinning and twisting things. Coun Horton should learn to read letters more carefully, and quote them accurately, rather than making mischief by misquoting them. He should also write a public apology to Mr Laverack. This is very poor and shameful conduct by the ex-Lord Mayor.
Horton also conveniently ducked the real issue - the INCREASE ! Does he agree with it, and more importantly, does he want it ? Will Alexander and his ragtag mob follow in the footsteps of their free-loading MP pal, 'Huge Expenses' Bayley and grab every penny they can ?
While they stay quiet on this, it 'infers' that they are not saying no to it, does it not ?
Jezreel
says...
4:42pm Thu 20 Sep 12
Or does that not sit comfortably with your anti-labour agenda ?
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
9:45pm Thu 20 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:Who is denouncing payment ?
Matthew, If I remember right it was the Tories who introduced payments for councillors. Why are you not denouncing the government and demanding they do something about it? It's all their fault
Or does that not sit comfortably with your anti-labour agenda ?
The issue is the proposed increase. Do keep up !!!
Jezreel
says...
8:31am Fri 21 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:So Matthew, you're OK with the principal of payment because it was a Tory idea. Just agin the increase.
Jezreel wrote:Who is denouncing payment ?
Matthew, If I remember right it was the Tories who introduced payments for councillors. Why are you not denouncing the government and demanding they do something about it? It's all their fault
Or does that not sit comfortably with your anti-labour agenda ?
The issue is the proposed increase. Do keep up !!!
But are you under the impression that York Council is paid more than average? What if they are paid less than other comparable authorities and need the increase to catch up? Surely you back it then in the interests of fairness?
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
2:24pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:Not in the current economic climate, and certainly not when the Council is so badly managed.
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:So Matthew, you're OK with the principal of payment because it was a Tory idea. Just agin the increase. But are you under the impression that York Council is paid more than average? What if they are paid less than other comparable authorities and need the increase to catch up? Surely you back it then in the interests of fairness?Jezreel wrote: Matthew, If I remember right it was the Tories who introduced payments for councillors. Why are you not denouncing the government and demanding they do something about it? It's all their fault Or does that not sit comfortably with your anti-labour agenda ?Who is denouncing payment ? The issue is the proposed increase. Do keep up !!!
Steve Galloway made some bad decisions, but, he worked harder for York than Alexander does, that's for sure ! SG's workrate deserved better remuneration, but, Alexander should be taking a cut, as all he does is attention seek and seek headlines and photo opportunities. He's an utter disgrace !
Jezreel
says...
3:49pm Fri 21 Sep 12
a) Inconvenient fact. Paying councils was a Tory project. You are firing at the wrong target.
b) You have no idea, and don't care where York comes on the scale of payments to councillors. You have not done one jot of research to check the facts
It's not a campaign, its a vendetta.
Ichabod76
says...
4:47pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Maybe it's you who could be accused of a vendetta ?
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
5:24pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:The target is the proposed increase.
Heres the unpalatable truth Matthew. a) Inconvenient fact. Paying councils was a Tory project. You are firing at the wrong target. b) You have no idea, and don't care where York comes on the scale of payments to councillors. You have not done one jot of research to check the facts It's not a campaign, its a vendetta.
Who is saying that they shouldn't be paid ? Certainly not me, or Matthew.
Stop trying to put words in mine, or Matthew's mouth.
Stop changing the subject.
You are the one with a vendetta - against Matthew Laverack. Your bitterness and prejudice makes you look pathetic.
bolero says...
12:43pm Tue 18 Sep 12