Fresh row blows up over £700 a day payments to City of York Council Local Plan expert

York Press: Sarah Tanburn Sarah Tanburn

A NEW row has blown up after details emerged of the way a top City of York Council official will be paid £700 a day to oversee the Local Plan process.

A Freedom of Information request has revealed that payments will be made to Sarah Tanburn Associates Ltd - understood to be a limited company - on receipt of an invoice, rather than directly to Ms Tanburn.

The council also says it will not make payments to Sarah Tanburn Associates in respect of National Insurance or Income Tax .

Opposition councillors have already slated what they called profligacy and a lack of transparency in decisions about the appointment of Ms Tanburn to shepherd the controversial Local Plan through the planning process.

Now Tory group leader Chris Steward has said the payment arrangement adopted was similar to ones used by various celebrities in recent years to reduce their tax liability, which had been strongly criticised by numerous Labour politicians.

"It is totally hypocritical for this Labour-run authority to adopt this means of payment," he claimed.

But Labour's Cabinet Member for Finance & Performance, Cllr Dafydd Williams, said it was a great pity Cllr Steward had chosen to politicise the arrangement when the Conservatives had in the past supported similar appointments.

"Their crocodile tears are a reflection of their opposition to Labour’s Local Plan which will deliver new homes and jobs for the people of York and their determination to obstruct anything that helps that plan to be delivered," he claimed.

He added that the council chief executive had appointed a 'highly skilled and exceptionally experienced professional', who was eminently qualified to deliver key priorities and who would actually cost the council significantly less than her predecessor in the role.

A council spokeswoman said Sarah Tanburn’s day rate was £700, working four days per week and for 45 weeks per year, which equated to £126,000.

"There are no employer costs for Tax, NI, pension or sick pay," she said. "Sarah will only be paid for days that she works, so if she is absent for any reason (i.e sickness) this amount would be reduced further."

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:11am Sat 5 Jul 14

nearlyman says...

Its all just a little bit crooked........these people just remove themselves from the tax bracket. We pay more than them !!
Is she being employed by the council with all her feted experience or is it one of her associates whose experience we do not know of....thats assuming there are any associates !!
This is what the BBC do with our money and 'Talent'...........
Its all just a little bit crooked........these people just remove themselves from the tax bracket. We pay more than them !! Is she being employed by the council with all her feted experience or is it one of her associates whose experience we do not know of....thats assuming there are any associates !! This is what the BBC do with our money and 'Talent'........... nearlyman
  • Score: -26

10:41am Sat 5 Jul 14

inthesticks says...

This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it. inthesticks
  • Score: 21

10:48am Sat 5 Jul 14

courier46 says...

This woman as well as the majority of councillors have no interest in what happens to our city ,only the money.The person/s in charge of the local plan should be local born and bred .
This woman as well as the majority of councillors have no interest in what happens to our city ,only the money.The person/s in charge of the local plan should be local born and bred . courier46
  • Score: -18

10:50am Sat 5 Jul 14

pedalling paul says...

Such is the stuff of democracy........per
sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals.
Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..
Such is the stuff of democracy........per sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals. Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere.. pedalling paul
  • Score: -26

10:57am Sat 5 Jul 14

Dave Ruddock says...

£700 a day , no tax and the rest paid to a company, So we tax payers are getting fleeced, that company it getting monies Tax free, do we take it all the other Bought and Brought in people are the same, monies paid to outside companies..
Same goes for all Parliamentary Parties, Use the council workers employed. STINKS OF PRIVATIZATION./
£700 a day , no tax and the rest paid to a company, So we tax payers are getting fleeced, that company it getting monies Tax free, do we take it all the other Bought and Brought in people are the same, monies paid to outside companies.. Same goes for all Parliamentary Parties, Use the council workers employed. STINKS OF PRIVATIZATION./ Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -21

11:00am Sat 5 Jul 14

CaroleBaines says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Such is the stuff of democracy........per

sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals.
Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..
Why is the retail development excessive? As one of the fastest growing cities in the UK in terms of population growth, we needed more outlets than the very outdated Clifton Moor et al were providing. Look at the crowds who have flocked there.

As for Bootham Crescent, does not just about every other sizable place have an out of town sports arena nowadays, mostly built in conjunction with local authority support? Is York not allowed facilities towns like Shrewsbury, Chesterfield, Scunthorpe and the rest have had for years? Sounds like you want York to stay in the 1970s, Paul!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Such is the stuff of democracy........per sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals. Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..[/p][/quote]Why is the retail development excessive? As one of the fastest growing cities in the UK in terms of population growth, we needed more outlets than the very outdated Clifton Moor et al were providing. Look at the crowds who have flocked there. As for Bootham Crescent, does not just about every other sizable place have an out of town sports arena nowadays, mostly built in conjunction with local authority support? Is York not allowed facilities towns like Shrewsbury, Chesterfield, Scunthorpe and the rest have had for years? Sounds like you want York to stay in the 1970s, Paul! CaroleBaines
  • Score: 34

11:18am Sat 5 Jul 14

nearlyman says...

inthesticks wrote:
This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
Its nothing to do with any political persuasion..........
.I have no problem with the fudamentals of the tax system....its just when people ( of whatever persuasion ) push the boudaries so far that they are taking the pee ! ......and to get a little politico........what of all the phony leftie celebrities who do it..............Anim
al Farm !!
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.[/p][/quote]Its nothing to do with any political persuasion.......... .I have no problem with the fudamentals of the tax system....its just when people ( of whatever persuasion ) push the boudaries so far that they are taking the pee ! ......and to get a little politico........what of all the phony leftie celebrities who do it..............Anim al Farm !! nearlyman
  • Score: -26

11:57am Sat 5 Jul 14

the-e-man says...

Dave Ruddock wrote:
£700 a day , no tax and the rest paid to a company, So we tax payers are getting fleeced, that company it getting monies Tax free, do we take it all the other Bought and Brought in people are the same, monies paid to outside companies..
Same goes for all Parliamentary Parties, Use the council workers employed. STINKS OF PRIVATIZATION./
Ignorance rules !!!!
What happens is that the Limited Company pay Corporation Tax on the net profit they make in any one particular tax year.
The Shareholders of the Company ( presumably Tanburn ) will draw dividends which, because Corporation Tax will already have been paid, are not subjected to the standard rate of Income Tax. However, if Tanburn's income ( including the dividends) exceeds the higher rate thresh hold then she will have to pay tax at the higher rate - just like everybody else. ( For those who are interested and want the exact details , just to complicate it even more to calculate the net dividend the figure is actually divided by 9 and multiplied by 10 ).
There are of course benefits from directing income through a Limited Company some of which are quite obvious. Tanburn can pay herself a very small salary ( say £6K per annum thus avoiding NI contributions. She may well also be able to claim travelling costs and, if she is living away from home, accomodation costs. She will also be able to channel various other legitimate expenses through the business. Another way to become more tax efficient is to stage the paying of dividends over years when the recipitants income is low so ensuring that their income does not go into the higher tax thresh hold.
A downside is that The Limited Company will incur various costs that an individual does not.
This practise is used extensively - one example is the free lance presenters you watch on your TV every day. I am aware that some Companies will only hire contract staff on this basis.
So to sum it up, this is all a "storm in a teacup".
I personally wish the Labour party out of power but I do think that the Conservatives must be desperate to latch on to this - or they are relying on the ignorance of "Joe Public".
[quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: £700 a day , no tax and the rest paid to a company, So we tax payers are getting fleeced, that company it getting monies Tax free, do we take it all the other Bought and Brought in people are the same, monies paid to outside companies.. Same goes for all Parliamentary Parties, Use the council workers employed. STINKS OF PRIVATIZATION./[/p][/quote]Ignorance rules !!!! What happens is that the Limited Company pay Corporation Tax on the net profit they make in any one particular tax year. The Shareholders of the Company ( presumably Tanburn ) will draw dividends which, because Corporation Tax will already have been paid, are not subjected to the standard rate of Income Tax. However, if Tanburn's income ( including the dividends) exceeds the higher rate thresh hold then she will have to pay tax at the higher rate - just like everybody else. ( For those who are interested and want the exact details , just to complicate it even more to calculate the net dividend the figure is actually divided by 9 and multiplied by 10 ). There are of course benefits from directing income through a Limited Company some of which are quite obvious. Tanburn can pay herself a very small salary ( say £6K per annum thus avoiding NI contributions. She may well also be able to claim travelling costs and, if she is living away from home, accomodation costs. She will also be able to channel various other legitimate expenses through the business. Another way to become more tax efficient is to stage the paying of dividends over years when the recipitants income is low so ensuring that their income does not go into the higher tax thresh hold. A downside is that The Limited Company will incur various costs that an individual does not. This practise is used extensively - one example is the free lance presenters you watch on your TV every day. I am aware that some Companies will only hire contract staff on this basis. So to sum it up, this is all a "storm in a teacup". I personally wish the Labour party out of power but I do think that the Conservatives must be desperate to latch on to this - or they are relying on the ignorance of "Joe Public". the-e-man
  • Score: 32

12:10pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Dave Ruddock says...

ok thanks
ok thanks Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 1

12:27pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Knavesmire view says...

the-e-man wrote:
Dave Ruddock wrote:
£700 a day , no tax and the rest paid to a company, So we tax payers are getting fleeced, that company it getting monies Tax free, do we take it all the other Bought and Brought in people are the same, monies paid to outside companies..
Same goes for all Parliamentary Parties, Use the council workers employed. STINKS OF PRIVATIZATION./
Ignorance rules !!!!
What happens is that the Limited Company pay Corporation Tax on the net profit they make in any one particular tax year.
The Shareholders of the Company ( presumably Tanburn ) will draw dividends which, because Corporation Tax will already have been paid, are not subjected to the standard rate of Income Tax. However, if Tanburn's income ( including the dividends) exceeds the higher rate thresh hold then she will have to pay tax at the higher rate - just like everybody else. ( For those who are interested and want the exact details , just to complicate it even more to calculate the net dividend the figure is actually divided by 9 and multiplied by 10 ).
There are of course benefits from directing income through a Limited Company some of which are quite obvious. Tanburn can pay herself a very small salary ( say £6K per annum thus avoiding NI contributions. She may well also be able to claim travelling costs and, if she is living away from home, accomodation costs. She will also be able to channel various other legitimate expenses through the business. Another way to become more tax efficient is to stage the paying of dividends over years when the recipitants income is low so ensuring that their income does not go into the higher tax thresh hold.
A downside is that The Limited Company will incur various costs that an individual does not.
This practise is used extensively - one example is the free lance presenters you watch on your TV every day. I am aware that some Companies will only hire contract staff on this basis.
So to sum it up, this is all a "storm in a teacup".
I personally wish the Labour party out of power but I do think that the Conservatives must be desperate to latch on to this - or they are relying on the ignorance of "Joe Public".
Except her company will only be taxed 20% whereas she personally would have been taxed at 40% plus PAYE and NI.

Arrangements like this are usually in place so that she does NOT draw dividends/taxable income, instead she could buy a property or such like without being taxed first.

Or the shareholdings are held in a way that members of her family will draw dividends and spread the income across their tax bands so that none of them hit higher rates.

Sorry, but this whole arrangement is in place to reduce her tax, no matter how you look at it.
[quote][p][bold]the-e-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: £700 a day , no tax and the rest paid to a company, So we tax payers are getting fleeced, that company it getting monies Tax free, do we take it all the other Bought and Brought in people are the same, monies paid to outside companies.. Same goes for all Parliamentary Parties, Use the council workers employed. STINKS OF PRIVATIZATION./[/p][/quote]Ignorance rules !!!! What happens is that the Limited Company pay Corporation Tax on the net profit they make in any one particular tax year. The Shareholders of the Company ( presumably Tanburn ) will draw dividends which, because Corporation Tax will already have been paid, are not subjected to the standard rate of Income Tax. However, if Tanburn's income ( including the dividends) exceeds the higher rate thresh hold then she will have to pay tax at the higher rate - just like everybody else. ( For those who are interested and want the exact details , just to complicate it even more to calculate the net dividend the figure is actually divided by 9 and multiplied by 10 ). There are of course benefits from directing income through a Limited Company some of which are quite obvious. Tanburn can pay herself a very small salary ( say £6K per annum thus avoiding NI contributions. She may well also be able to claim travelling costs and, if she is living away from home, accomodation costs. She will also be able to channel various other legitimate expenses through the business. Another way to become more tax efficient is to stage the paying of dividends over years when the recipitants income is low so ensuring that their income does not go into the higher tax thresh hold. A downside is that The Limited Company will incur various costs that an individual does not. This practise is used extensively - one example is the free lance presenters you watch on your TV every day. I am aware that some Companies will only hire contract staff on this basis. So to sum it up, this is all a "storm in a teacup". I personally wish the Labour party out of power but I do think that the Conservatives must be desperate to latch on to this - or they are relying on the ignorance of "Joe Public".[/p][/quote]Except her company will only be taxed 20% whereas she personally would have been taxed at 40% plus PAYE and NI. Arrangements like this are usually in place so that she does NOT draw dividends/taxable income, instead she could buy a property or such like without being taxed first. Or the shareholdings are held in a way that members of her family will draw dividends and spread the income across their tax bands so that none of them hit higher rates. Sorry, but this whole arrangement is in place to reduce her tax, no matter how you look at it. Knavesmire view
  • Score: -24

12:30pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Jack Ham says...

And this is the same council, led by Kersten and James who only last month spent tens of thousands of our money to fly people in from across the works to their 'Fairness Conference' from where they lectured us on inequality.

Next up we have them pushing for a 'poverty free city' and a 'living wage city'.

Their insincere, disingenuous politically driven spin, at our expense, makes me feel physically sick.
And this is the same council, led by Kersten and James who only last month spent tens of thousands of our money to fly people in from across the works to their 'Fairness Conference' from where they lectured us on inequality. Next up we have them pushing for a 'poverty free city' and a 'living wage city'. Their insincere, disingenuous politically driven spin, at our expense, makes me feel physically sick. Jack Ham
  • Score: -24

1:13pm Sat 5 Jul 14

acomblass says...

Would this be the same Kersten England, poster girl for the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative,chair of Cycle Yorkshire and the woman charged with delivering the Grand Depart's lasting legacy? Good article in yesterday's Yorkshire Post page 11.
Would this be the same Kersten England, poster girl for the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative,chair of Cycle Yorkshire and the woman charged with delivering the Grand Depart's lasting legacy? Good article in yesterday's Yorkshire Post page 11. acomblass
  • Score: -22

1:46pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Jack Ham says...

acomblass wrote:
Would this be the same Kersten England, poster girl for the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative,chair of Cycle Yorkshire and the woman charged with delivering the Grand Depart's lasting legacy? Good article in yesterday's Yorkshire Post page 11.
Has all this been publicly declared and any conflicts of interest resolved?

I must admit to being a little puzzled by the obsession CYC has developed with cycling in recent years. Maybe this explains it.

I hope the chief executive hasn't been using residents taxes to support her personal beliefs.
[quote][p][bold]acomblass[/bold] wrote: Would this be the same Kersten England, poster girl for the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative,chair of Cycle Yorkshire and the woman charged with delivering the Grand Depart's lasting legacy? Good article in yesterday's Yorkshire Post page 11.[/p][/quote]Has all this been publicly declared and any conflicts of interest resolved? I must admit to being a little puzzled by the obsession CYC has developed with cycling in recent years. Maybe this explains it. I hope the chief executive hasn't been using residents taxes to support her personal beliefs. Jack Ham
  • Score: -23

2:18pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Badgers Drift says...

inthesticks wrote:
This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets.

Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council.

According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here?

Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days.

I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.[/p][/quote]Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets. Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council. According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here? Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days. I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -34

2:24pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Jack Ham says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets.

Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council.

According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here?

Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days.

I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.
Good analysis. I suspect CYC will struggle to answer the question.

I have a huge amount of respect for true socialists. These champagne socialists at CYC deserve nothing but contempt.

Lecturing others on poverty and fairness whilst minimising tax liabilities and enjoying £100k+ salaries.

Staggering.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.[/p][/quote]Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets. Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council. According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here? Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days. I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.[/p][/quote]Good analysis. I suspect CYC will struggle to answer the question. I have a huge amount of respect for true socialists. These champagne socialists at CYC deserve nothing but contempt. Lecturing others on poverty and fairness whilst minimising tax liabilities and enjoying £100k+ salaries. Staggering. Jack Ham
  • Score: -32

2:24pm Sat 5 Jul 14

bolero says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Such is the stuff of democracy........per

sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals.
Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..
This is the man who knows absolutely nothing about taxes or indeed anything that does not come in cycles. He thinks that money just falls off the trees and doesn't understand that wherever money comes from in terms of government spending be it national or local that it has to come from the taxpayer.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Such is the stuff of democracy........per sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals. Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..[/p][/quote]This is the man who knows absolutely nothing about taxes or indeed anything that does not come in cycles. He thinks that money just falls off the trees and doesn't understand that wherever money comes from in terms of government spending be it national or local that it has to come from the taxpayer. bolero
  • Score: -23

2:30pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Meirion M says...

Naw te, Dafydd,
Yow aretrying to make political points.
The people of York are sick and tiried o local party.
I have Lbour my days at Aberyswyth Unvesrity, but next year, 2015, I cannot vote Labour in the local electns as your leader, or should I say, your rudderless party in York, is a total disgrace.
Naw te, Dafydd, Yow aretrying to make political points. The people of York are sick and tiried o local party. I have Lbour my days at Aberyswyth Unvesrity, but next year, 2015, I cannot vote Labour in the local electns as your leader, or should I say, your rudderless party in York, is a total disgrace. Meirion M
  • Score: -26

2:32pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Meirion M says...

What makes this woman an "expert" of anything?
York Council: get rid of her and those who hired her.
PRONTO.
What makes this woman an "expert" of anything? York Council: get rid of her and those who hired her. PRONTO. Meirion M
  • Score: -24

2:33pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Badgers Drift says...

Jack Ham wrote:
And this is the same council, led by Kersten and James who only last month spent tens of thousands of our money to fly people in from across the works to their 'Fairness Conference' from where they lectured us on inequality. Next up we have them pushing for a 'poverty free city' and a 'living wage city'. Their insincere, disingenuous politically driven spin, at our expense, makes me feel physically sick.
I had heard that the Fairness Conference cost ran into tens of £thousands, with JRF contributing to the cost.

Looks like we need another FOI to get the exact figure that COYC paid, including a breakdown of the cost of flying delegates here from all over Europe, plus their accommodation costs.

This event was a political talking shop for the socialist factions, and all aimed at the redistribution agenda to combat inequality, in true marxist fashion. It was attended by the members of the cultural political charitable elitist clique which seeks to control York and it's citizens.

I agree with Jack Ham, It is sickening!
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: And this is the same council, led by Kersten and James who only last month spent tens of thousands of our money to fly people in from across the works to their 'Fairness Conference' from where they lectured us on inequality. Next up we have them pushing for a 'poverty free city' and a 'living wage city'. Their insincere, disingenuous politically driven spin, at our expense, makes me feel physically sick.[/p][/quote]I had heard that the Fairness Conference cost ran into tens of £thousands, with JRF contributing to the cost. Looks like we need another FOI to get the exact figure that COYC paid, including a breakdown of the cost of flying delegates here from all over Europe, plus their accommodation costs. This event was a political talking shop for the socialist factions, and all aimed at the redistribution agenda to combat inequality, in true marxist fashion. It was attended by the members of the cultural political charitable elitist clique which seeks to control York and it's citizens. I agree with Jack Ham, It is sickening! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -39

4:08pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Badgers Drift says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
inthesticks wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets. Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council. According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here? Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days. I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.
Further to this, the fact that Darren Richardson worked 5 days a week compared with Sarah Tanburn's 4days/wk, means that the cost of DR should be discounted by 20% for a like for like comparison.

£126,000 x 80% = £100,800 divided by (45 x4) = £560/day

At £700/day Sarah Tanburn is NOT value for money!
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.[/p][/quote]Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets. Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council. According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here? Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days. I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.[/p][/quote]Further to this, the fact that Darren Richardson worked 5 days a week compared with Sarah Tanburn's 4days/wk, means that the cost of DR should be discounted by 20% for a like for like comparison. £126,000 x 80% = £100,800 divided by (45 x4) = £560/day At £700/day Sarah Tanburn is NOT value for money! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -42

5:48pm Sat 5 Jul 14

the-e-man says...

Knavesmire view wrote:
the-e-man wrote:
Dave Ruddock wrote:
£700 a day , no tax and the rest paid to a company, So we tax payers are getting fleeced, that company it getting monies Tax free, do we take it all the other Bought and Brought in people are the same, monies paid to outside companies..
Same goes for all Parliamentary Parties, Use the council workers employed. STINKS OF PRIVATIZATION./
Ignorance rules !!!!
What happens is that the Limited Company pay Corporation Tax on the net profit they make in any one particular tax year.
The Shareholders of the Company ( presumably Tanburn ) will draw dividends which, because Corporation Tax will already have been paid, are not subjected to the standard rate of Income Tax. However, if Tanburn's income ( including the dividends) exceeds the higher rate thresh hold then she will have to pay tax at the higher rate - just like everybody else. ( For those who are interested and want the exact details , just to complicate it even more to calculate the net dividend the figure is actually divided by 9 and multiplied by 10 ).
There are of course benefits from directing income through a Limited Company some of which are quite obvious. Tanburn can pay herself a very small salary ( say £6K per annum thus avoiding NI contributions. She may well also be able to claim travelling costs and, if she is living away from home, accomodation costs. She will also be able to channel various other legitimate expenses through the business. Another way to become more tax efficient is to stage the paying of dividends over years when the recipitants income is low so ensuring that their income does not go into the higher tax thresh hold.
A downside is that The Limited Company will incur various costs that an individual does not.
This practise is used extensively - one example is the free lance presenters you watch on your TV every day. I am aware that some Companies will only hire contract staff on this basis.
So to sum it up, this is all a "storm in a teacup".
I personally wish the Labour party out of power but I do think that the Conservatives must be desperate to latch on to this - or they are relying on the ignorance of "Joe Public".
Except her company will only be taxed 20% whereas she personally would have been taxed at 40% plus PAYE and NI.

Arrangements like this are usually in place so that she does NOT draw dividends/taxable income, instead she could buy a property or such like without being taxed first.

Or the shareholdings are held in a way that members of her family will draw dividends and spread the income across their tax bands so that none of them hit higher rates.

Sorry, but this whole arrangement is in place to reduce her tax, no matter how you look at it.
The whole point is the employer ( in this case YCC ) avoid having to pay NI contibutions, holiday entitlement and other employer based responsibilities and the employee forgo their employee rights in return for reduced tax liability.
However, as I pointed out in my previous post, should Tanburn's income exceed £41,865 pa then she will have to pay tax at 40%.
I agree that dividends can be taken by other family members but again, if that person's income exceeds £41,865 then they too would have to pay tax at 40%.
I also agree that this is used to reduce tax liability but I regard it as being more a case of being tax efficient - certainly not tax evasion. Quite within the rules. To a lot less degree I have done similar - invested money in my wife's name to use her £10K pa tax allowance to ensure we do not pay tax on the (meagre) interest.. To me its common sense.
Some who have contibuted to this article appear upset that they cannot use this method to be paid their wages/salary but the question is would they be prepared to forgo their employee rights. The saying "Socialism is the politics of envy" comes to mind !!!!
[quote][p][bold]Knavesmire view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the-e-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: £700 a day , no tax and the rest paid to a company, So we tax payers are getting fleeced, that company it getting monies Tax free, do we take it all the other Bought and Brought in people are the same, monies paid to outside companies.. Same goes for all Parliamentary Parties, Use the council workers employed. STINKS OF PRIVATIZATION./[/p][/quote]Ignorance rules !!!! What happens is that the Limited Company pay Corporation Tax on the net profit they make in any one particular tax year. The Shareholders of the Company ( presumably Tanburn ) will draw dividends which, because Corporation Tax will already have been paid, are not subjected to the standard rate of Income Tax. However, if Tanburn's income ( including the dividends) exceeds the higher rate thresh hold then she will have to pay tax at the higher rate - just like everybody else. ( For those who are interested and want the exact details , just to complicate it even more to calculate the net dividend the figure is actually divided by 9 and multiplied by 10 ). There are of course benefits from directing income through a Limited Company some of which are quite obvious. Tanburn can pay herself a very small salary ( say £6K per annum thus avoiding NI contributions. She may well also be able to claim travelling costs and, if she is living away from home, accomodation costs. She will also be able to channel various other legitimate expenses through the business. Another way to become more tax efficient is to stage the paying of dividends over years when the recipitants income is low so ensuring that their income does not go into the higher tax thresh hold. A downside is that The Limited Company will incur various costs that an individual does not. This practise is used extensively - one example is the free lance presenters you watch on your TV every day. I am aware that some Companies will only hire contract staff on this basis. So to sum it up, this is all a "storm in a teacup". I personally wish the Labour party out of power but I do think that the Conservatives must be desperate to latch on to this - or they are relying on the ignorance of "Joe Public".[/p][/quote]Except her company will only be taxed 20% whereas she personally would have been taxed at 40% plus PAYE and NI. Arrangements like this are usually in place so that she does NOT draw dividends/taxable income, instead she could buy a property or such like without being taxed first. Or the shareholdings are held in a way that members of her family will draw dividends and spread the income across their tax bands so that none of them hit higher rates. Sorry, but this whole arrangement is in place to reduce her tax, no matter how you look at it.[/p][/quote]The whole point is the employer ( in this case YCC ) avoid having to pay NI contibutions, holiday entitlement and other employer based responsibilities and the employee forgo their employee rights in return for reduced tax liability. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, should Tanburn's income exceed £41,865 pa then she will have to pay tax at 40%. I agree that dividends can be taken by other family members but again, if that person's income exceeds £41,865 then they too would have to pay tax at 40%. I also agree that this is used to reduce tax liability but I regard it as being more a case of being tax efficient - certainly not tax evasion. Quite within the rules. To a lot less degree I have done similar - invested money in my wife's name to use her £10K pa tax allowance to ensure we do not pay tax on the (meagre) interest.. To me its common sense. Some who have contibuted to this article appear upset that they cannot use this method to be paid their wages/salary but the question is would they be prepared to forgo their employee rights. The saying "Socialism is the politics of envy" comes to mind !!!! the-e-man
  • Score: 21

6:04pm Sat 5 Jul 14

CHISSY1 says...

No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.
No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour. CHISSY1
  • Score: 18

6:54pm Sat 5 Jul 14

rat scabies says...

courier46 wrote:
This woman as well as the majority of councillors have no interest in what happens to our city ,only the money.The person/s in charge of the local plan should be local born and bred .
well said! modern day labour party members are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves! they are a 1000 times worse than the 1980's tories!
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: This woman as well as the majority of councillors have no interest in what happens to our city ,only the money.The person/s in charge of the local plan should be local born and bred .[/p][/quote]well said! modern day labour party members are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves! they are a 1000 times worse than the 1980's tories! rat scabies
  • Score: -21

6:58pm Sat 5 Jul 14

rat scabies says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Such is the stuff of democracy........per

sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals.
Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..
You really are a tit!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Such is the stuff of democracy........per sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals. Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..[/p][/quote]You really are a tit! rat scabies
  • Score: -23

6:59pm Sat 5 Jul 14

AnotherPointofView says...

CHISSY1 wrote:
No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.
What a load of nonsense. Show business (which is what football is) is a completely different business model.

I am no fan of Wayne Rooney but to suggest a chimp could do better does show your ignorance of the subject.
[quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.[/p][/quote]What a load of nonsense. Show business (which is what football is) is a completely different business model. I am no fan of Wayne Rooney but to suggest a chimp could do better does show your ignorance of the subject. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -23

7:00pm Sat 5 Jul 14

CHISSY1 says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.
What a load of nonsense. Show business (which is what football is) is a completely different business model.

I am no fan of Wayne Rooney but to suggest a chimp could do better does show your ignorance of the subject.
Doh
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.[/p][/quote]What a load of nonsense. Show business (which is what football is) is a completely different business model. I am no fan of Wayne Rooney but to suggest a chimp could do better does show your ignorance of the subject.[/p][/quote]Doh CHISSY1
  • Score: 27

7:01pm Sat 5 Jul 14

julia brica says...

Jack Ham wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets.

Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council.

According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here?

Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days.

I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.
Good analysis. I suspect CYC will struggle to answer the question.

I have a huge amount of respect for true socialists. These champagne socialists at CYC deserve nothing but contempt.

Lecturing others on poverty and fairness whilst minimising tax liabilities and enjoying £100k+ salaries.

Staggering.
They will struggle to answer the question and then go very quiet...............
..same as usual. So get the FOI forms ready.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.[/p][/quote]Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets. Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council. According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here? Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days. I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.[/p][/quote]Good analysis. I suspect CYC will struggle to answer the question. I have a huge amount of respect for true socialists. These champagne socialists at CYC deserve nothing but contempt. Lecturing others on poverty and fairness whilst minimising tax liabilities and enjoying £100k+ salaries. Staggering.[/p][/quote]They will struggle to answer the question and then go very quiet............... ..same as usual. So get the FOI forms ready. julia brica
  • Score: -25

7:07pm Sat 5 Jul 14

julia brica says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
inthesticks wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets. Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council. According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here? Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days. I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.
Further to this, the fact that Darren Richardson worked 5 days a week compared with Sarah Tanburn's 4days/wk, means that the cost of DR should be discounted by 20% for a like for like comparison.

£126,000 x 80% = £100,800 divided by (45 x4) = £560/day

At £700/day Sarah Tanburn is NOT value for money!
Your right but with those square glasses and short fringe and dangly ear things she does look quite fetching. Not sure about the pursed lips though. Wouldn't kick her out of **** Wot say u buzz
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.[/p][/quote]Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets. Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council. According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here? Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days. I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.[/p][/quote]Further to this, the fact that Darren Richardson worked 5 days a week compared with Sarah Tanburn's 4days/wk, means that the cost of DR should be discounted by 20% for a like for like comparison. £126,000 x 80% = £100,800 divided by (45 x4) = £560/day At £700/day Sarah Tanburn is NOT value for money![/p][/quote]Your right but with those square glasses and short fringe and dangly ear things she does look quite fetching. Not sure about the pursed lips though. Wouldn't kick her out of **** Wot say u buzz julia brica
  • Score: -35

7:10pm Sat 5 Jul 14

julia brica says...

CHISSY1 wrote:
No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.
Not for much longer I think...............
.....steady on with the chimp bit I know some very nice chimps..............
.......sorry chumps.
[quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.[/p][/quote]Not for much longer I think............... .....steady on with the chimp bit I know some very nice chimps.............. .......sorry chumps. julia brica
  • Score: -32

7:12pm Sat 5 Jul 14

julia brica says...

rat scabies wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Such is the stuff of democracy........per


sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals.
Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..
You really are a tit!
Tits like coconuts............
.....when there is no other food about. (Benny Hill)
[quote][p][bold]rat scabies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Such is the stuff of democracy........per sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals. Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..[/p][/quote]You really are a tit![/p][/quote]Tits like coconuts............ .....when there is no other food about. (Benny Hill) julia brica
  • Score: -31

7:27pm Sat 5 Jul 14

julia brica says...

julia brica wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
inthesticks wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets. Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council. According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here? Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days. I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.
Further to this, the fact that Darren Richardson worked 5 days a week compared with Sarah Tanburn's 4days/wk, means that the cost of DR should be discounted by 20% for a like for like comparison.

£126,000 x 80% = £100,800 divided by (45 x4) = £560/day

At £700/day Sarah Tanburn is NOT value for money!
Your right but with those square glasses and short fringe and dangly ear things she does look quite fetching. Not sure about the pursed lips though. Wouldn't kick her out of **** Wot say u buzz
Oh and lets not forget ............she earns a fortune..........my sort of gal.
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.[/p][/quote]Sarah Tanburn is clearly a supporter of socialism, as can be seen from her twitter tweets. Seeking to avoid paying tax says a lot doesn't it - a sort of, do as I say, not as I do, attitude - which is very much what we get from senior officials at York Council. According to the Council's last information posted on it website, Darren Richardson's salary was £92,491/yr. If you add 10% for Employers NHI, this brings the cost to £101,740, which means his pension cost had to be more than £24,260/yr, if the cost of Sarah Tanburn is to be less than him. My understanding is that the pensioncost of Directors is c.£20,000/yr, so Coun Williams might be bending the facts/truth here? Also, the £126,000 is calculated on 4 days/wk,but, this is the minimum, and if necessary Sarah Tanburn may be asked to work more days. I think we need more information on darren richardson's remuneration, as evidence to prover the councillor's claim. Based on past experience with this labour council, i doubt that we will get it without resorting to using FOI.[/p][/quote]Further to this, the fact that Darren Richardson worked 5 days a week compared with Sarah Tanburn's 4days/wk, means that the cost of DR should be discounted by 20% for a like for like comparison. £126,000 x 80% = £100,800 divided by (45 x4) = £560/day At £700/day Sarah Tanburn is NOT value for money![/p][/quote]Your right but with those square glasses and short fringe and dangly ear things she does look quite fetching. Not sure about the pursed lips though. Wouldn't kick her out of **** Wot say u buzz[/p][/quote]Oh and lets not forget ............she earns a fortune..........my sort of gal. julia brica
  • Score: -29

7:53pm Sat 5 Jul 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Afaik all this article shows is that the council brought this person in as a consultant not an employee. Presumably she's easier to sack.
Afaik all this article shows is that the council brought this person in as a consultant not an employee. Presumably she's easier to sack. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 33

8:16pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Jalymo says...

Footballer's wages, private industry wages, rock star wages etc etc are not comparable with public sector wages. The Council demand money with menaces from their citizens ( pay the Council Tax we demand from you or go to jail ), to pay the people they choose to employ. That is why public scrutiny of how The Council spend OUR money and on whom, is so very important.
Footballer's wages, private industry wages, rock star wages etc etc are not comparable with public sector wages. The Council demand money with menaces from their citizens ( pay the Council Tax we demand from you or go to jail ), to pay the people they choose to employ. That is why public scrutiny of how The Council spend OUR money and on whom, is so very important. Jalymo
  • Score: -23

9:30pm Sat 5 Jul 14

the-e-man says...

rat scabies wrote:
courier46 wrote:
This woman as well as the majority of councillors have no interest in what happens to our city ,only the money.The person/s in charge of the local plan should be local born and bred .
well said! modern day labour party members are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves! they are a 1000 times worse than the 1980's tories!
Without the 1980's Tories we would have finished up with the likes of Arthur Scargill or Red Robo as President not just of their (Soviet) Union but of the UK. Be careful what you wish for.
[quote][p][bold]rat scabies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: This woman as well as the majority of councillors have no interest in what happens to our city ,only the money.The person/s in charge of the local plan should be local born and bred .[/p][/quote]well said! modern day labour party members are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves! they are a 1000 times worse than the 1980's tories![/p][/quote]Without the 1980's Tories we would have finished up with the likes of Arthur Scargill or Red Robo as President not just of their (Soviet) Union but of the UK. Be careful what you wish for. the-e-man
  • Score: -22

9:47pm Sat 5 Jul 14

gmsgop says...

I have yet to hear any explanation at all as to why Kersten England did not quickly go to a full recruitment for a full time Director position - or why she recruited this woman for such a long period- as an interim. Or why she didn't have a full councillor recruitment - rather than our Kersten using the 'full extent' of her delegated powers to recruit whomever she wants.....

Perhaps we could look back to the process for recruiting the last interim Director -and his pay? Was he interviewed by Councillors or just slipped into post by Kersten?

It is high time, and I have been calling for this for months, that citizens are involved with updating the constitution. An essential change is to firmly curtail the delegated powers of the chief Exec - she should not be allowed to recruit any chief officer or head of section without oversight from an appointments panel.

Talent is what we need the most, and is in significant short supply amongst top staff in many areas- they need support in recruiting the right calibre - whilst Councillors may not have the best experience, they will at least ensure a proper open process happens. To help them do this we need to firm up on the very sloppy recruitment and advertising jobs protocols that have led to a takent defecit that we can all see.

Meanwhile, let's have an assurance that this new consultant will not charge fees for work given to lower level employees in her organisation. Oh, and if not rude- perhaps we could ask about all this experience she has had in getting local plans adopted- not easy to see on the web that this is a skills set she enjoys.
I have yet to hear any explanation at all as to why Kersten England did not quickly go to a full recruitment for a full time Director position - or why she recruited this woman for such a long period- as an interim. Or why she didn't have a full councillor recruitment - rather than our Kersten using the 'full extent' of her delegated powers to recruit whomever she wants..... Perhaps we could look back to the process for recruiting the last interim Director -and his pay? Was he interviewed by Councillors or just slipped into post by Kersten? It is high time, and I have been calling for this for months, that citizens are involved with updating the constitution. An essential change is to firmly curtail the delegated powers of the chief Exec - she should not be allowed to recruit any chief officer or head of section without oversight from an appointments panel. Talent is what we need the most, and is in significant short supply amongst top staff in many areas- they need support in recruiting the right calibre - whilst Councillors may not have the best experience, they will at least ensure a proper open process happens. To help them do this we need to firm up on the very sloppy recruitment and advertising jobs protocols that have led to a takent defecit that we can all see. Meanwhile, let's have an assurance that this new consultant will not charge fees for work given to lower level employees in her organisation. Oh, and if not rude- perhaps we could ask about all this experience she has had in getting local plans adopted- not easy to see on the web that this is a skills set she enjoys. gmsgop
  • Score: -49

9:57pm Sat 5 Jul 14

gmsgop says...

gmsgop wrote:
I have yet to hear any explanation at all as to why Kersten England did not quickly go to a full recruitment for a full time Director position - or why she recruited this woman for such a long period- as an interim. Or why she didn't have a full councillor recruitment - rather than our Kersten using the 'full extent' of her delegated powers to recruit whomever she wants.....

Perhaps we could look back to the process for recruiting the last interim Director -and his pay? Was he interviewed by Councillors or just slipped into post by Kersten?

It is high time, and I have been calling for this for months, that citizens are involved with updating the constitution. An essential change is to firmly curtail the delegated powers of the chief Exec - she should not be allowed to recruit any chief officer or head of section without oversight from an appointments panel.

Talent is what we need the most, and is in significant short supply amongst top staff in many areas- they need support in recruiting the right calibre - whilst Councillors may not have the best experience, they will at least ensure a proper open process happens. To help them do this we need to firm up on the very sloppy recruitment and advertising jobs protocols that have led to a takent defecit that we can all see.

Meanwhile, let's have an assurance that this new consultant will not charge fees for work given to lower level employees in her organisation. Oh, and if not rude- perhaps we could ask about all this experience she has had in getting local plans adopted- not easy to see on the web that this is a skills set she enjoys.
Sorry forgot to sign
Gwen swinburn
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: I have yet to hear any explanation at all as to why Kersten England did not quickly go to a full recruitment for a full time Director position - or why she recruited this woman for such a long period- as an interim. Or why she didn't have a full councillor recruitment - rather than our Kersten using the 'full extent' of her delegated powers to recruit whomever she wants..... Perhaps we could look back to the process for recruiting the last interim Director -and his pay? Was he interviewed by Councillors or just slipped into post by Kersten? It is high time, and I have been calling for this for months, that citizens are involved with updating the constitution. An essential change is to firmly curtail the delegated powers of the chief Exec - she should not be allowed to recruit any chief officer or head of section without oversight from an appointments panel. Talent is what we need the most, and is in significant short supply amongst top staff in many areas- they need support in recruiting the right calibre - whilst Councillors may not have the best experience, they will at least ensure a proper open process happens. To help them do this we need to firm up on the very sloppy recruitment and advertising jobs protocols that have led to a takent defecit that we can all see. Meanwhile, let's have an assurance that this new consultant will not charge fees for work given to lower level employees in her organisation. Oh, and if not rude- perhaps we could ask about all this experience she has had in getting local plans adopted- not easy to see on the web that this is a skills set she enjoys.[/p][/quote]Sorry forgot to sign Gwen swinburn gmsgop
  • Score: -34

10:40pm Sat 5 Jul 14

eeoodares says...

inthesticks wrote:
This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
I think the reason 'the Tory' pointed it out is because Liebour have stated that it is not moral. So it would appear that Liebour are neither capable nor honest.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.[/p][/quote]I think the reason 'the Tory' pointed it out is because Liebour have stated that it is not moral. So it would appear that Liebour are neither capable nor honest. eeoodares
  • Score: -24

11:36pm Sat 5 Jul 14

wallman says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Such is the stuff of democracy........per

sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals.
Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..
you for real pp or just having a joke?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Such is the stuff of democracy........per sonally I'd prefer that Sarah is left in peace to get on with the vital task of getting the Local Plan licked into shape for Whitehall approval. Otherwise CoYC will have nothing with which to legally resist inappropriate development proposals. Let's not forget that it was the adherents of Bootham Crescent percipitated the Stadium decision, whose associated excessive retail development caused the first Local Plan draft to be ditched. Maybe point the finger elsewhere..[/p][/quote]you for real pp or just having a joke? wallman
  • Score: -19

11:40pm Sat 5 Jul 14

wallman says...

CHISSY1 wrote:
No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.
Chissy what have you goy against animals?
[quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.[/p][/quote]Chissy what have you goy against animals? wallman
  • Score: -22

11:43pm Sat 5 Jul 14

wallman says...

wallman wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.
Chissy what have you goy against animals?
meant got
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.[/p][/quote]Chissy what have you goy against animals?[/p][/quote]meant got wallman
  • Score: -18

12:00am Sun 6 Jul 14

CHISSY1 says...

wallman wrote:
wallman wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.
Chissy what have you goy against animals?
meant got
Nuffin.
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.[/p][/quote]Chissy what have you goy against animals?[/p][/quote]meant got[/p][/quote]Nuffin. CHISSY1
  • Score: 16

12:01am Sun 6 Jul 14

CHISSY1 says...

CHISSY1 wrote:
wallman wrote:
wallman wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.
Chissy what have you goy against animals?
meant got
Nuffin.
Meant, nothing.
[quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: No doubt some of you posters are fans of football.Wayne Rooney £300,000 a week,lets face it a chimp could do better than him.Thats over £1700 every hour.[/p][/quote]Chissy what have you goy against animals?[/p][/quote]meant got[/p][/quote]Nuffin.[/p][/quote]Meant, nothing. CHISSY1
  • Score: 23

12:34am Sun 6 Jul 14

York Castle says...

....and when they pay the invoice of her limited company, of course the money paid out does not show in the accounts of the CoYC payroll! "Aren't we clever, our wages bill has decreased this year". they will say...... Just the same as all those Agency temporary staff don't show in payroll, because they are shown as payments of invoices to the Agencies. You have to smile, .....as you are putting your 'X' on your ballot paper.
....and when they pay the invoice of her limited company, of course the money paid out does not show in the accounts of the CoYC payroll! "Aren't we clever, our wages bill has decreased this year". they will say...... Just the same as all those Agency temporary staff don't show in payroll, because they are shown as payments of invoices to the Agencies. You have to smile, .....as you are putting your 'X' on your ballot paper. York Castle
  • Score: -24

9:16am Sun 6 Jul 14

inthesticks says...

eeoodares wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
I think the reason 'the Tory' pointed it out is because Liebour have stated that it is not moral. So it would appear that Liebour are neither capable nor honest.
I didn`t say anywhere that any labour leaning person has ever used tax avoidance . However, it is a fact that the Government have had the power to change the shabby laws over the last few years and havn`t done so because they have had their fingers in the very pies that will be more heavily taxed.
The one person responsible for this appointment isn`t having to answer the questions - KE, as usual the cllrs are doing so. I bet DW didn`t know anything about the appointment until after the event, now he`s having to defend it on behalf of KE. I find our whole council system in York very undemocratic, especially one person making decisions without question. It has to change, as Gwen said.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.[/p][/quote]I think the reason 'the Tory' pointed it out is because Liebour have stated that it is not moral. So it would appear that Liebour are neither capable nor honest.[/p][/quote]I didn`t say anywhere that any labour leaning person has ever used tax avoidance . However, it is a fact that the Government have had the power to change the shabby laws over the last few years and havn`t done so because they have had their fingers in the very pies that will be more heavily taxed. The one person responsible for this appointment isn`t having to answer the questions - KE, as usual the cllrs are doing so. I bet DW didn`t know anything about the appointment until after the event, now he`s having to defend it on behalf of KE. I find our whole council system in York very undemocratic, especially one person making decisions without question. It has to change, as Gwen said. inthesticks
  • Score: -26

9:32am Sun 6 Jul 14

Jack Ham says...

As always, Gwen makes a very relevant and insightful contribution to the debate.

The crux of this matter is whether Kersten England could, or should, have used delegated powers to make these (how many?) expensive interim appointments on our behalf.

I have yet to see any evidence on either point. KE tells us she had the authority and the necessity was there but how is this evidenced? Where is the accountability and oversight for the Chief Executive?

The legality of her actions might also be worth further study. I a have delegated authority to spend up to 'x' at work. This is fine for a few transactions but if I did it too many times the costs would multiply astronomically and could endanger the finances. That wasn't the intention of those giving delegated powers.

I'm not a public law lawyer but I understand questions like this could relate to actions being 'ultra vires' or behaviour amounting to 'malfeasance in public office'. As a public body the actions of City of York Council would also be open to Judicial Review.

It would need an interested party to lead the action but wouldn't it be wonderful to have this whole sorry episode opened up to true judicial scrutiny.
As always, Gwen makes a very relevant and insightful contribution to the debate. The crux of this matter is whether Kersten England could, or should, have used delegated powers to make these (how many?) expensive interim appointments on our behalf. I have yet to see any evidence on either point. KE tells us she had the authority and the necessity was there but how is this evidenced? Where is the accountability and oversight for the Chief Executive? The legality of her actions might also be worth further study. I a have delegated authority to spend up to 'x' at work. This is fine for a few transactions but if I did it too many times the costs would multiply astronomically and could endanger the finances. That wasn't the intention of those giving delegated powers. I'm not a public law lawyer but I understand questions like this could relate to actions being 'ultra vires' or behaviour amounting to 'malfeasance in public office'. As a public body the actions of City of York Council would also be open to Judicial Review. It would need an interested party to lead the action but wouldn't it be wonderful to have this whole sorry episode opened up to true judicial scrutiny. Jack Ham
  • Score: -30

1:01pm Sun 6 Jul 14

Badgers Drift says...

inthesticks wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
inthesticks wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.
I think the reason 'the Tory' pointed it out is because Liebour have stated that it is not moral. So it would appear that Liebour are neither capable nor honest.
I didn`t say anywhere that any labour leaning person has ever used tax avoidance . However, it is a fact that the Government have had the power to change the shabby laws over the last few years and havn`t done so because they have had their fingers in the very pies that will be more heavily taxed. The one person responsible for this appointment isn`t having to answer the questions - KE, as usual the cllrs are doing so. I bet DW didn`t know anything about the appointment until after the event, now he`s having to defend it on behalf of KE. I find our whole council system in York very undemocratic, especially one person making decisions without question. It has to change, as Gwen said.
York Council is not democratic, it's autocratic - a dictatorship - run by two dictators; Kersten England and James Alexander - both need to go!
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: This is how business works; them that earns the most contribute the least, percentage wise. No shock there, only it`s a bit weird a Tory pointing out the unfairness of it considering there`s thousands of them doing it.[/p][/quote]I think the reason 'the Tory' pointed it out is because Liebour have stated that it is not moral. So it would appear that Liebour are neither capable nor honest.[/p][/quote]I didn`t say anywhere that any labour leaning person has ever used tax avoidance . However, it is a fact that the Government have had the power to change the shabby laws over the last few years and havn`t done so because they have had their fingers in the very pies that will be more heavily taxed. The one person responsible for this appointment isn`t having to answer the questions - KE, as usual the cllrs are doing so. I bet DW didn`t know anything about the appointment until after the event, now he`s having to defend it on behalf of KE. I find our whole council system in York very undemocratic, especially one person making decisions without question. It has to change, as Gwen said.[/p][/quote]York Council is not democratic, it's autocratic - a dictatorship - run by two dictators; Kersten England and James Alexander - both need to go! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -30

1:58pm Sun 6 Jul 14

rat scabies says...

the-e-man wrote:
rat scabies wrote:
courier46 wrote:
This woman as well as the majority of councillors have no interest in what happens to our city ,only the money.The person/s in charge of the local plan should be local born and bred .
well said! modern day labour party members are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves! they are a 1000 times worse than the 1980's tories!
Without the 1980's Tories we would have finished up with the likes of Arthur Scargill or Red Robo as President not just of their (Soviet) Union but of the UK. Be careful what you wish for.
Yes i know, but i was a young naive labour voter working in a nationalised industry back then, but one thing is for sure i won't be voting labour in the future.
[quote][p][bold]the-e-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rat scabies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: This woman as well as the majority of councillors have no interest in what happens to our city ,only the money.The person/s in charge of the local plan should be local born and bred .[/p][/quote]well said! modern day labour party members are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves! they are a 1000 times worse than the 1980's tories![/p][/quote]Without the 1980's Tories we would have finished up with the likes of Arthur Scargill or Red Robo as President not just of their (Soviet) Union but of the UK. Be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]Yes i know, but i was a young naive labour voter working in a nationalised industry back then, but one thing is for sure i won't be voting labour in the future. rat scabies
  • Score: -10

5:09pm Mon 7 Jul 14

the-e-man says...

rat scabies wrote:
the-e-man wrote:
rat scabies wrote:
courier46 wrote:
This woman as well as the majority of councillors have no interest in what happens to our city ,only the money.The person/s in charge of the local plan should be local born and bred .
well said! modern day labour party members are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves! they are a 1000 times worse than the 1980's tories!
Without the 1980's Tories we would have finished up with the likes of Arthur Scargill or Red Robo as President not just of their (Soviet) Union but of the UK. Be careful what you wish for.
Yes i know, but i was a young naive labour voter working in a nationalised industry back then, but one thing is for sure i won't be voting labour in the future.
Judging by the negative voting on my original post it appears that either people are burying their heads in the sand or have very short memories - or of course it may well be that they were not born then.
I can remember the days of power cuts ( just like I have experienced in third world countries) , TV broadcasting time limited to save electricity and shortages of various everyday goods such as bread, milk,flour ( so you could not make your own bread) and even toilet rolls.
All this was brought on by the power mad selfish union leaders who led their flocks of sheep ( sorry members) on one strike after another.
The country was grinding to a halt and the electorate knew it. Thats why they voted in the Conservatives so they could sort it all out. People relentlessly harp on about Thatcher and the 1980s Conservatives but what must remembered is that they were democratically elected so that must have been the will of the people.
True it was severe action they took but that is what was needed and the electorate at that time knew it and appreciated it.
[quote][p][bold]rat scabies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the-e-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rat scabies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: This woman as well as the majority of councillors have no interest in what happens to our city ,only the money.The person/s in charge of the local plan should be local born and bred .[/p][/quote]well said! modern day labour party members are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves! they are a 1000 times worse than the 1980's tories![/p][/quote]Without the 1980's Tories we would have finished up with the likes of Arthur Scargill or Red Robo as President not just of their (Soviet) Union but of the UK. Be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]Yes i know, but i was a young naive labour voter working in a nationalised industry back then, but one thing is for sure i won't be voting labour in the future.[/p][/quote]Judging by the negative voting on my original post it appears that either people are burying their heads in the sand or have very short memories - or of course it may well be that they were not born then. I can remember the days of power cuts ( just like I have experienced in third world countries) , TV broadcasting time limited to save electricity and shortages of various everyday goods such as bread, milk,flour ( so you could not make your own bread) and even toilet rolls. All this was brought on by the power mad selfish union leaders who led their flocks of sheep ( sorry members) on one strike after another. The country was grinding to a halt and the electorate knew it. Thats why they voted in the Conservatives so they could sort it all out. People relentlessly harp on about Thatcher and the 1980s Conservatives but what must remembered is that they were democratically elected so that must have been the will of the people. True it was severe action they took but that is what was needed and the electorate at that time knew it and appreciated it. the-e-man
  • Score: -21

11:03am Tue 8 Jul 14

meme says...

the problem is that all the people who are brought into these jobs are from a pool of people who have specialised in Local Authority work and will be guaranteed to tow the political line and get paid royally to do so.
they all come from the same background and all know each other and move from job to job as they run out of steam on the last one..see D Richardson...full of promise but delivered nothing.
I don't know what we do about this as we need fresh blood prepared to ruffle a few feathers and make members see commercial, common sense but it does not appear to happen or be likely to happen soon in York
we are unfortunate that we have an unpopular political class fighting for survival who have become more and more defensive of their actions and are frightened of making any more mistakes so nothing happens of significance
Shame but I hope at local elections we get a clean sweep and the old guard are moved on and a completely new set of politic virgins brought in with the courage to face the issues York has like overspending, vanity projects wastage, too high salaries etc and who get back to delivering basic solid services to those who need them
the problem is that all the people who are brought into these jobs are from a pool of people who have specialised in Local Authority work and will be guaranteed to tow the political line and get paid royally to do so. they all come from the same background and all know each other and move from job to job as they run out of steam on the last one..see D Richardson...full of promise but delivered nothing. I don't know what we do about this as we need fresh blood prepared to ruffle a few feathers and make members see commercial, common sense but it does not appear to happen or be likely to happen soon in York we are unfortunate that we have an unpopular political class fighting for survival who have become more and more defensive of their actions and are frightened of making any more mistakes so nothing happens of significance Shame but I hope at local elections we get a clean sweep and the old guard are moved on and a completely new set of politic virgins brought in with the courage to face the issues York has like overspending, vanity projects wastage, too high salaries etc and who get back to delivering basic solid services to those who need them meme
  • Score: -18

11:16pm Tue 8 Jul 14

missfedup says...

Yes, what we absolutely need is fresh blood coming in to the mess that is the draft Local Plan and Further Sites Consultation. Sarah Tanburn needs to come in with her eyes wide open and be OBJECTIVE. She needs to recognise that there is a lot of political ambition of a few people at the top of the tree, and that this ambition is driving the Local Plan's ridiculous figures which simply do not stack up. Come on Sarah, help the residents of York out on this mess and make sure you are earning your wage. Get the leaders and the planners to SCALE IT DOWN, THINK sensibly about the locations of some of these proposed developments (Clifton Gate, ha ha ha, as if that should be allowed to happen) and please above all, LISTEN to what the residents of York are saying about our beloved city. We do not want to be the fastest growing city in Europe thanks very much James Alexander. We are happy with being the jewel in Yorkshire's crown, small but very shiny.
Yes, what we absolutely need is fresh blood coming in to the mess that is the draft Local Plan and Further Sites Consultation. Sarah Tanburn needs to come in with her eyes wide open and be OBJECTIVE. She needs to recognise that there is a lot of political ambition of a few people at the top of the tree, and that this ambition is driving the Local Plan's ridiculous figures which simply do not stack up. Come on Sarah, help the residents of York out on this mess and make sure you are earning your wage. Get the leaders and the planners to SCALE IT DOWN, THINK sensibly about the locations of some of these proposed developments (Clifton Gate, ha ha ha, as if that should be allowed to happen) and please above all, LISTEN to what the residents of York are saying about our beloved city. We do not want to be the fastest growing city in Europe thanks very much James Alexander. We are happy with being the jewel in Yorkshire's crown, small but very shiny. missfedup
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree