Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: Bluezorro on December 09, 2012, 08:16:02 PM
-
Wise up shopkeepers.
You need to register your boards outside shops with the council.
A disability group was going to take action against smbc if they did not act first.
Seems a shame as i always enjoyed the krypton factor assault course on derby way.
-
Wise up shopkeepers.
You need to register your boards outside shops with the council.
A disability group was going to take action against smbc if they did not act first.
Seems a shame as i always enjoyed the krypton factor assault course on derby way.
Agree Bluezerro these things are a real menace someone should speak to MarpleBusiness Forum and get them to raise it with there members.
-
Wise up shopkeepers.
You need to register your boards outside shops with the council.
A disability group was going to take action against smbc if they did not act first.
Seems a shame as i always enjoyed the krypton factor assault course on derby way.
I understood the council had ditched their daft plan to stick a load of bureaucracy & cost to businesses.
I think all we need is for pedestrians to watch where they are going.
-
Yep the blind and partially sighted one's are a real pain walking into those A board.
-
Yep the blind and partially sighted one's are a real pain walking into those A board.
Wheelsie, they can negotiate seats, trees, other people - an A board which is designed to be seen is not going to cause any great surprise.
The local council should support local business rather than doing everything they can to destroy it
-
Wise up shopkeepers.
You need to register your boards outside shops with the council.
A disability group was going to take action against smbc if they did not act first.
Seems a shame as i always enjoyed the krypton factor assault course on derby way.
With fixed posts and seating and stalls outside shops and the greengrocer's stock all over the entrance to Derby Way I think advertising boards are the least of the problem.
There are no blanket requirements for panning permission for boards. It's generally up to the local lot and most councils tend to not bother much. However, if a complaint is made they have to address it so if you want something done about it you need to get as many people as possible to bombard the council with complaints (individual ones are better than a petition as they take up more (wo)man power). If there's no bye-law covering it in Stockport I doubt that the disability group would get anywhere with a legal challenge even if they could afford it.
-
Your totally wrong Duke this issue has come up because disabled groups are are asking the Council to enforce existing legislation and are threatening to take the council to court if they don't.What would you have the Council do in that position??????
-
the council have to cover themselves to protect from any legal cases.
if they get sued it is our council tax money that will be used.
I think the pound shop may need to extend into the land behind them.
-
Your totally wrong Duke this issue has come up because disabled groups are are asking the Council to enforce existing legislation and are threatening to take the council to court if they don't.What would you have the Council do in that position??????
Do you have a link? The traders' association I belonged to had a representative from the council visit to sell the idea and got short shrift. It was later advised that the idea would be shelved. Wor lass' shop has just had a new A board made up so it better not be true, in our case the A board is on a private bit of the pavement and not owned by the council so we wouldn't need to adhere to their requirements.
Truth is, retailers are having a hard enough time without a load of busy-bodies desperately trying to find something to moan about
-
It is not the biggest issue for many but it has caused enduring conflict between Stockport's ruling parties.
My understanding of the core - thinking on the issue is this. Libdems in Stockport believe (you'll like this Duke) that business should be entitled to put out "A" boards to advertise, full stop. Whereas Labour, (this you won't like) believe that these boards are an obstruction/danger in the public footway that they impede drunks,wheelchair users, unobservant school kids, old people,partially - sighted, the list goes on. They would ban them entirely and prosecute offenders also full stop.
Nobody can recall where these stances originated but neither party has ever conceded one pin and this total non - compromise has resulted in no clear policy for Officers to implement.
Everytime something is actually written, it stands for a few months and then violent argument ensues once again only for it to be re-written then whilst it is being re-written it stays in Limbo. As well as this there are always different versions in circulation. IT'S A MUDDLE.
Localities also reflect political thinking, sometimes unwittingly. Take heed Wheels, I know that you don't believe local politicians have any influence but this is yet another typical example of our lives being influenced by them without us knowing it. If you're in Marple (Libdem Territory) you can put out as many of these boards as you like and in testimony of this the place is festooned with them. Any attempt to prevent you by Council Officers will be interceded by local Councillors. Conversely If you live in the Heatons (predominantly Labour - totally come 2014) and you put an "A" board out Local Councillors will again intercede but this time to ensure you take it down. As a consequence of this any kind of attempt at regulation keeps out of the likes of Marple and concentrates on the likes of The Heatons.
As these parties come closer to parity in terms of numbers of seats this comparitively minor issue could become even more muddled. As if we haven't got enough trouble with issues that really matter.
-
By the way Duke, private land does not give you the automatic right to erect obstacles if that's what you're "A" board is deemed to be. Is ..."wor lass's" shop in either Marple or Heatons? If it's in Marple she is safe and unless people complain in large numbers nothing will happen and it will almost certainly be ignored.
-
Irrespective of any of that Simone there is now national legislation which disabled groups are pressing the council to enforce. My personal view so its clear to you is that not only are these boards potentially a danger they are in fact an eyesore in our over cluttered environment and I would like to see them got rid off.
You are quite wrong if you think that I think councillors have little power. For example the leader of Stockport Council controlling a budget of several hundred millions pounds has much more power than say a back bench MP like Stunnell.
There are however several timeserving LA members who contribute little and Marple has a fair share of such members.
-
Stockport Council are, I understand, drawing up a guide for best practice around 'A Boards'. The Councillor representation on this is Cllr Iain Roberts (cllr.iain.roberts@stockport.gov.uk).
Not sure if they have finished doing this as yet, but certainly were on with it a few months ago.
:-)
-
Stockport Council are, I understand, drawing up a guide for best practice around 'A Boards'. The Councillor representation on this is Cllr Iain Roberts (cllr.iain.roberts@stockport.gov.uk).
Not sure if they have finished doing this as yet, but certainly were on with it a few months ago.
:-)
Gaz, that's the problem.
-
Wheels,
I am prepared to be guided to it but I am unaware of any "National Legislation" that's the reason for the disparity, there isn't any. National Government have passed the buck to local authorities. They don't want it, it's too messy. There are so many things that can find their way onto obstructing the footway. Even people can be classed as an obstruction. In the cities it would be an absolute administrative, unenforcible nightmare.
There is a ... D.O.T. "Mobility Inclusive Guideline" which I am not absolutely sure but I think came out of the 1980 Highways Act and refers to a "2 metre minimum clearance width on the footway". I haven't got the time nor inclination to look it up and plough through it but I am almost certain that it proactively clearly states that it cannot be enforced by law hence the description .."guideline".
Wheels, tell us about your "National Legislation". Where does it come from ?
-
you know that Wheels sometimes makes things up.
:D
-
I must explain to you the difference Dave between making things up and being told things you just don't agree with. I am not convinced you understand the difference. ;D
-
No wheels, it's you that doesn't understand the difference - between Simone and me. It's Simone that thinks you make things up. I certainly don't. :-*
-
No wheels, it's you that doesn't understand the difference - between Simone and me. It's Simone that thinks you make things up. I certainly don't. :-*
Gentleman it's nearly Christmas do you think you could SHUT up and say something constructive instead of
Trying to outdo one another . I'm sure admin will Agree with me
-
It is not the biggest issue for many but it has caused enduring conflict between Stockport's ruling parties.
My understanding of the core - thinking on the issue is this. Libdems in Stockport believe (you'll like this Duke) that business should be entitled to put out "A" boards to advertise, full stop. Whereas Labour, (this you won't like) believe that these boards are an obstruction/danger in the public footway that they impede drunks,wheelchair users, unobservant school kids, old people,partially - sighted, the list goes on. They would ban them entirely and prosecute offenders also full stop.
Nobody can recall where these stances originated but neither party has ever conceded one pin and this total non - compromise has resulted in no clear policy for Officers to implement.
Everytime something is actually written, it stands for a few months and then violent argument ensues once again only for it to be re-written then whilst it is being re-written it stays in Limbo. As well as this there are always different versions in circulation. IT'S A MUDDLE.
Localities also reflect political thinking, sometimes unwittingly. Take heed Wheels, I know that you don't believe local politicians have any influence but this is yet another typical example of our lives being influenced by them without us knowing it. If you're in Marple (Libdem Territory) you can put out as many of these boards as you like and in testimony of this the place is festooned with them. Any attempt to prevent you by Council Officers will be interceded by local Councillors. Conversely If you live in the Heatons (predominantly Labour - totally come 2014) and you put an "A" board out Local Councillors will again intercede but this time to ensure you take it down. As a consequence of this any kind of attempt at regulation keeps out of the likes of Marple and concentrates on the likes of The Heatons.
As these parties come closer to parity in terms of numbers of seats this comparitively minor issue could become even more muddled. As if we haven't got enough trouble with issues that really matter.
Because Labour don't understand business and think the world owes them a living and Liberals give people the benefit of making their own minds up. Who's right? Well, the Labour party gave you the fool of Gordon Brown and the outright lies of Ed Balls?
-
By the way Duke, private land does not give you the automatic right to erect obstacles if that's what you're "A" board is deemed to be. Is ..."wor lass's" shop in either Marple or Heatons? If it's in Marple she is safe and unless people complain in large numbers nothing will happen and it will almost certainly be ignored.
Small point Simon but it's simple O'level stuff, wor lass' shop not wor lass's, I'm not Marple's equivalent of Arnold Swain.
-
No wheels, it's you that doesn't understand the difference - between Simone and me. It's Simone that thinks you make things up. I certainly don't. :-*
Whereas I do
-
Sorry, about the spelling mistake Duke but I've never really been able to get to grips with Geordie dialect. Nor do I know who Arnold Swain is.
I am sure he is worthy and noble, please enlighten.
-
I think Duke considers "wor lass's" to be the plural of "wor lass' " :D
-
I think Duke considers "wor lass's" to be the plural of "wor lass' " :D
It ia absolute literary pedantry and I am not unashamed to be responding to it. It is a bit like those people that pull you up about your spelling mistakes and call them "typographical errors". Anyway we all make them but in the referred to example I inserted the apostrophe to denote ownership and to indicate that Duke's Lass owned the shop as in Lass's shop. However it is probably entirely different in Geordie and if there is an error I willingly concede to it.
-
By the way admin.
Do you know who Arnold Swain is ?
-
By the way admin.
Do you know who Arnold Swain is ?
Yes.
-
Please tell.
-
Please tell.
Toots, i'm not sure if I'm right now, I'd been out last evening for the first time in ages, that eggnog went right to my head ;-)
Arnold Swain was the Emily Bishop's (out of coronation street) 2nd husband but it turned out that before marrying Emily, he'd forgot to mention it to his current wife. That is why I was saying I only have one Wor lass, if I had anymore I would be doing bigomy stuff which isn't right, especially at Christmas.
Having said all that, I'm not that sure about my apostraphies now so we'll go back to agreeing with me that shops should be allowed to promote their wares with a suitable 'A' board.
-
Needs a bit of pressure then - as soon as a guide comes out then people will know what to do.
I'll drop him a Tweet.
-
I'm lost.
-
I think I'm probably with you blossom and I have probably contributed to it.
One thing Duke as it's Christmas. Please stop calling me Simon, it is the wrong gender and the wrong name.
-
As an attempt to get the topic back on track, is this still relevant or is it all change again since this was published?
http://www.marplebusinessforum.co.uk/latest-news/140-new-a-board-legislation.html
-
As an attempt to get the topic back on track, is this still relevant or is it all change again since this was published?
http://www.marplebusinessforum.co.uk/latest-news/140-new-a-board-legislation.html
It's still draft as far as I can see.
The parade of shops I'm familiar with only has one A board each and it's placed on the same line down the pavement, nobody had walked into any of these boards in the last 5 years.
-
It is relevant but only inasmuch as it is the current draft protocol of which there have been several. Three this year alone, if I'm not mistaken. The current draft protocol does not take into account that the Stockport Labour Party want "A" boards banned completely. They don't want any "licensing system" or protocol or specification, rightly or wrongly they just want them out. It is also problematic that there appears to be no national legislation to steer the issue.
-
As an attempt to get the topic back on track, is this still relevant or is it all change again since this was published?
http://www.marplebusinessforum.co.uk/latest-news/140-new-a-board-legislation.html
It's changed since then. SMBC have finished their consultation and released the final Obstructions Policy.
See: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/transport/highwayandstreetlightmaintenance/aboards
-
As an attempt to get the topic back on track, is this still relevant or is it all change again since this was published?
http://www.marplebusinessforum.co.uk/latest-news/140-new-a-board-legislation.html
It's changed since then. SMBC have finished their consultation and released the final Obstructions Policy.
See: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/transport/highwayandstreetlightmaintenance/aboards
Two hopes of that working.
-
As an attempt to get the topic back on track, is this still relevant or is it all change again since this was published?
http://www.marplebusinessforum.co.uk/latest-news/140-new-a-board-legislation.html
It's changed since then. SMBC have finished their consultation and released the final Obstructions Policy.
See: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/transport/highwayandstreetlightmaintenance/aboards
Two hopes of that working.
It really is typical council rubbish. They have invented a problem that doesn't exist, taken over two years justifying the employment of a load of employees at a huge amount of cost, re-drafting & re-drafting something that clearly will not work and in doing so, inconvenience and criminalizing a whole host of retailers who are struggling to keep afloat never mind earn a living who clearly do not need yet another demand by some clueless public-sector jobsworth types.
All that's needed is a set of guidelinnes for good practice, no licences, no need for 'consultancy periods' etc etc. The council could have made that department redundant, saving us all a few 100 grand in tax and the amount saved could be in the pockets of tax-payers who will spend that spare cash in shops, the additional demand will mean the retailers can take on more staff which means those council pencil pushers / strikers / 'no to cuts' protesters can get a job doing something meaningful.
Simon, you are Simone? Wow, that's brave in a little town like Marple. I've read a bit about it and you should think long and hard about the change, live as Simone before removing Simon fi you know what I mean.
-
What are you on about Duke, Disability Stockport are pressing the Council to enforce national legislation. The Council have come up with a perfectly reasonable system of licencing A boards where they are not a problem and asking for those that are to be removed. The council, sadly in my view, are not charging retailer for this.
So what exactly are the Council doing wrong?????
-
What are you on about Duke, Disability Stockport are pressing the Council to enforce national legislation. The Council have come up with a perfectly reasonable system of licencing A boards where they are not a problem and asking for those that are to be removed. The council, sadly in my view, are not charging retailer for this.
So what exactly are the Council doing wrong?????
A licence will not stop obstructions, what will the penalty be? How are the retailers going to be informed? Why do you think retailers should pay more? Disability Stockport are causing the problem, should they not pay?
Our A board is set out to be seen, nobody has ever walked into it or any other A board on our parade. Licensing seems to be a bureaucratic hammer to crack a nut.
-
So can I get this right Duke you want the Council to take no action, and be taken to court by Disability Stockport for not enforcing national legislation and lose in court at the CT payers expense. I see you should have said that more clearly so we all understood.
-
So can I get this right Duke you want the Council to take no action, and be taken to court by Disability Stockport for not enforcing national legislation and lose in court at the CT payers expense. I see you should have said that more clearly so we all understood.
Think about it, if the council grew a pair and took disability Stockport's funding away, and sacked the team that has spent 3 years on this problem as well as legal costs, it saves a fair few quid. If Disablilty Stockport could afford to take the council to court, the cost would be far less than what has been wasted so far, the bureaucracy of running the scheme and the lost revenue to shops & sign-writers.
-
How much money will the shops lose filling a form out
-
Blue Zorro now your trying sense and logic. I counted 10 of these board out on Market St on Thursday.
-
I fail to see how a shopkeeper is unable to fill a dimple free form out.
-
Blue Zorro now your trying sense and logic. I counted 10 of these board out on Market St on Thursday.
Wheels, you've not really been out in your own time counting "A" boards have you ? They'll pay you thirty grand a year at the Council for doing that.
-
Simone you won't find many working in local government on £30k and just so there is no confusion I work in the private sector and have never workd in local government but value what the underpaid staff there do.
-
Wheels, according to the Office for National Statistics the average annual pay for a full time public sector worker is £28,802.00. I'm sure you'll agree that's not too far off thirty grand.
I know a lot of people in the public sector and whilst I've never seen their salary slips their lifestyle suggests to me that they earn much more than that. I'm not saying that they don't earn it nor deserve it, I'm just saying that they get it. Some public sector jobs are vital I agree but some that I've seen advertised appear to be a little silly and pointless. There also appears to be a great imbalance between others. For example the pay between Councillors and Senior Officers has great disparity. What does the leader of the Council get paid compared to the CEO and why?
Even the pay between Councillors across Council's has great disparity. You, yourself are on record as saying ..."our local Councillors are rubbish". I'm not saying they are and I know that this has been discussed before but one of the reasons we might have rubbish Councillors is - the pay. Only people who don't need the money can afford to do it and when they're doing it the money is that insignificant that they don't care if they lose it or not as it's usually a minor secondary income to them. Imagine if you approached your job with that attitude.
Just look at their age frame. They are all retired business people or pensioners, often both. Look at the Marple 6 - none of them have ever been down a coalmine and they would have never even considered being a Councillor when they were in their thirties or forties... They wait until their later years when a bit of pin money comes in handy.
-
Simons just to check - are you sure that 'public sector worker' and 'local council worker' are exactly the same when comparing salaries. After all the PM is a public sector worker as are headteachers, doctors, etc.
Are you sure your comparison is completely valid?
-
Belly,
I agree it isn't completely valid, averages and comparisons rarely are and you're right there are school caretakers and local doctors both "public sector" workers. One of them wildly below 30 grand and the other wildly above it. Of course we need 'em both and many public sector workers are vital. But it isn't completely invalid either and it is the pay scales of some against others that befuddles.
Teachers, Rat Catchers, Gardeners, Museum Curators, Librarians, Nurses, School Dinner - Ladies, Refuse Collectors, Planners, Sewer Pipe Menders - all vital roles. However there always seems to be a layer in the middle on 50/60/70 grand. And again why do Council Chief Executives get paid what they do - they don't have to put/keep bums on seats or generate business or raise revenue ? Does anybody know what the CE at smbc is on ? I don't, but it is probably around 150/170k per year. How is that arrived at ? These Chief Execs seem to have acquired massive pay leaps in the noughties when nobody was looking and they intend to keep them. What exactly do they do to justify this money and who exactly are they responsible too. We can't vote them out like a Councillor - can we ?
-
Wheels, according to the Office for National Statistics the average annual pay for a full time public sector worker is £28,802.00. I'm sure you'll agree that's not too far off thirty grand.
I know a lot of people in the public sector and whilst I've never seen their salary slips their lifestyle suggests to me that they earn much more than that. I'm not saying that they don't earn it nor deserve it, I'm just saying that they get it. Some public sector jobs are vital I agree but some that I've seen advertised appear to be a little silly and pointless. There also appears to be a great imbalance between others. For example the pay between Councillors and Senior Officers has great disparity. What does the leader of the Council get paid compared to the CEO and why?
Even the pay between Councillors across Council's has great disparity. You, yourself are on record as saying ..."our local Councillors are rubbish". I'm not saying they are and I know that this has been discussed before but one of the reasons we might have rubbish Councillors is - the pay. Only people who don't need the money can afford to do it and when they're doing it the money is that insignificant that they don't care if they lose it or not as it's usually a minor secondary income to them. Imagine if you approached your job with that attitude.
Just look at their age frame. They are all retired business people or pensioners, often both. Look at the Marple 6 - none of them have ever been down a coalmine and they would have never even considered being a Councillor when they were in their thirties or forties... They wait until their later years when a bit of pin money comes in handy.
Simone, the Leader of the COuncil gets about £28k plus the basic allowance of £9k available to all members so the council leader gets gross about £38k. The CE is well over over £100k
-
Wheels, according to the Office for National Statistics the average annual pay for a full time public sector worker is £28,802.00. I'm sure you'll agree that's not too far off thirty grand.
I know a lot of people in the public sector and whilst I've never seen their salary slips their lifestyle suggests to me that they earn much more than that. I'm not saying that they don't earn it nor deserve it, I'm just saying that they get it. Some public sector jobs are vital I agree but some that I've seen advertised appear to be a little silly and pointless. There also appears to be a great imbalance between others. For example the pay between Councillors and Senior Officers has great disparity. What does the leader of the Council get paid compared to the CEO and why?
Even the pay between Councillors across Council's has great disparity. You, yourself are on record as saying ..."our local Councillors are rubbish". I'm not saying they are and I know that this has been discussed before but one of the reasons we might have rubbish Councillors is - the pay. Only people who don't need the money can afford to do it and when they're doing it the money is that insignificant that they don't care if they lose it or not as it's usually a minor secondary income to them. Imagine if you approached your job with that attitude.
Just look at their age frame. They are all retired business people or pensioners, often both. Look at the Marple 6 - none of them have ever been down a coalmine and they would have never even considered being a Councillor when they were in their thirties or forties... They wait until their later years when a bit of pin money comes in handy.
Further the Concil Leader is Stockport is NOT of retirement age and gave up here ful time job as a HE Lecurter in order to become council leader. She has no other income from other outside bodies. All this is information is in the public domain already.
-
Wheels, according to the Office for National Statistics the average annual pay for a full time public sector worker is £28,802.00. I'm sure you'll agree that's not too far off thirty grand.
I know a lot of people in the public sector and whilst I've never seen their salary slips their lifestyle suggests to me that they earn much more than that. I'm not saying that they don't earn it nor deserve it, I'm just saying that they get it. Some public sector jobs are vital I agree but some that I've seen advertised appear to be a little silly and pointless. There also appears to be a great imbalance between others. For example the pay between Councillors and Senior Officers has great disparity. What does the leader of the Council get paid compared to the CEO and why?
Even the pay between Councillors across Council's has great disparity. You, yourself are on record as saying ..."our local Councillors are rubbish". I'm not saying they are and I know that this has been discussed before but one of the reasons we might have rubbish Councillors is - the pay. Only people who don't need the money can afford to do it and when they're doing it the money is that insignificant that they don't care if they lose it or not as it's usually a minor secondary income to them. Imagine if you approached your job with that attitude.
Just look at their age frame. They are all retired business people or pensioners, often both. Look at the Marple 6 - none of them have ever been down a coalmine and they would have never even considered being a Councillor when they were in their thirties or forties... They wait until their later years when a bit of pin money comes in handy.
Further the Concil Leader is Stockport is NOT of retirement age and gave up here ful time job as a HE Lecurter in order to become council leader. She has no other income from other outside bodies. All this is information is in the public domain already.
In fairness, people who work for the council aren't expected to do anything taxing. There is no strategy to improve sales, profit etc, nobody really loses anything if anything goes wrong. It's simple stuff, they get the street lights to come on at the right time and over-complicate the are of emptying the bins - lets not pay them anything more than the average salary and save on council tax.
Pay them too much, they end up wasting years formulating an unworkable over-elaborate A-board licencing system.
-
Wheels, according to the Office for National Statistics the average annual pay for a full time public sector worker is £28,802.00. I'm sure you'll agree that's not too far off thirty grand.
I almost missed that. Wow, the average public sector worker earns more than the average wage. Does that not tell us there is a problem.
-
Blue Zorro now your trying sense and logic. I counted 10 of these board out on Market St on Thursday.
Well done for counting wheels, given there are 45 business premises along Market St & Derby way area, do you agree that the problems reported are not problems at all with less than 1/4 of businesses having them and on that basis, even if they were stood accross the whole pavement there would still be enough room to walk around them all as Market St is over 9m wide.
There is no problem for the council to waste it's time on and perhaps we could save a few of those £28,000 salaries
-
Well Duke I happened to notice there board as I walk along Market St at 9am on 27th and I would think that less than half your 45 business had bothered to open. Would seem they just could not be bothered serving local people.
-
Well Duke I happened to notice there board as I walk along Market St at 9am on 27th and I would think that less than half your 45 business had bothered to open. Would seem they just could not be bothered serving local people.
And your point is?
1/2 of the 45 businesses in vicinity were closed and less than 1/2 of those had an A board which together amounts to a little over 3 1/2 sq mtrs in the rather large pedestrianised area of some 800 sq metres.
Remind me why you think we are paying a team of council staff an average of £28k each for 3 years to come up with a solution to what you have proved to be a non-existent problem
-
If we are going to be accurate she "gave up" her job as an HE Lecturer when she was "Deputy" Leader of the Council and did both jobs for many years in tandem and received incomes from both. Which gives an indication of how much time was applied to being Deputy Leader. You can't be at a meeting with council officers when you are delivering a lecture to a room full of students - that's too good a trick.
If you take the current Council Executive at least half of them have full - time jobs/businesses whilst the other half are past retirement age, one of them is over 80 years of age. I am not casting any aspersions about anybody's ability/commitment but does that seem to you like a good mix for running an organisation. Half with other full - time jobs the other half - Dad's Army. To me that does not support, commitment,energy, application, etc. etc.
I don't begrudge the Council Leader her 40 grand per year, that's my point I think she should get more, I think that all Councillors should get more. Then we might attract different types to be Councillors.
I do begrudge the CE his exhorbitant salary - it is far too much for what is expected, and there are other officers on similar pay to him. It isn't the Councillors that take the money out of the Council there's only 63 of them and like you say most of them are on less than 10k anyway. It is the Officers that take the lion's share out of Councils annd there are thousands of them - far too many on far too much money and some of them on pointless tasks that should not be any part of Council business.
In further irony of the whole situation I was told last night that one of the Marple 6 is standing down next election, well I knew that anyway. The problem is that they can't get a Candidate to replace him. As you would expect there are not many young dynamics who have either the time or the inclination to stand for a £9000 + plus per year job. It seems that the most suitable candidate identified is an ex Councillor now 80 years of age. Well here we go again.
It seems that our National politicians get younger whilst our local one's do the opposite. The time is not far off when we'll be digging them up to stand or maybe using cardboard replicas of the one's that have retired/died.
-
The solution appears to be to pay them a little more but to have far fewer of them.
-
Wow, the average public sector worker earns more than the average wage. Does that not tell us there is a problem.
Not really. What it tells us is the the average public sector employee is better qualified, and in a job that requires higher level qualifications, than the average private sector worker. This is well known and well documented.
The interesting thing about this is that, AFAIK, it is a relatively recent phenomenon, resulting from the widespread outsourcing of lower level jobs (street cleaning, refuse collection, dinner ladies, car home staff etc etc) from the public sector to the private, thus driving down the average wage and qualification level of private sector workers.
A more like-for-like comparison between public and private sector pay is by qualification and job level (professional, managerial, administrative, skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled etc etc). This presents a different picture. For example it seems that graduates are paid more in the private sector than they are the public, but for non-graduates it's the other way round.
-
And when you also factor in the value of defined-benefit public sector pensions.............
-
Indeed. That's where most private sector workers really lose out.
-
Dave,
I'm not sure a comparison between private/public, pay/qualifications was being made.
I thought that the comparison was being made within the Council and why some Officers are paid so highly whereas Councillors are paid so little which is possibly why we've got the Councillors that we've got, where the money is absolutely no incentive at all to the right kind of people.
Let's be honest 10k per year is lousy as a salary that you have to work all week for but it's not bad as a pension supplement if you don't have to do anything other than show your face once a month at the Council Meeting/Area Committee.
-
I doubt many elected members are initially attracted by the money there are other more compelling factors. A desire to contribute, to do some good, status, power all are more attractive I suggest than the money and if as some suggest the financial rewards were increased why would anyone think that more able people will get elected as first they need to be selected and selection will still go to the same individuals as are currently selected.
-
If we are going to be accurate she "gave up" her job as an HE Lecturer when she was "Deputy" Leader of the Council and did both jobs for many years in tandem and received incomes from both. Which gives an indication of how much time was applied to being Deputy Leader. You can't be at a meeting with council officers when you are delivering a lecture to a room full of students - that's too good a trick.
If you take the current Council Executive at least half of them have full - time jobs/businesses whilst the other half are past retirement age, one of them is over 80 years of age. I am not casting any aspersions about anybody's ability/commitment but does that seem to you like a good mix for running an organisation. Half with other full - time jobs the other half - Dad's Army. To me that does not support, commitment,energy, application, etc. etc.
I don't begrudge the Council Leader her 40 grand per year, that's my point I think she should get more, I think that all Councillors should get more. Then we might attract different types to be Councillors.
Well as at the time the current leader was Deputy Leader the DLs allowance was £1,800 I think she can be forgive for continuing to work in education.
I do begrudge the CE his exhorbitant salary - it is far too much for what is expected, and there are other officers on similar pay to him. It isn't the Councillors that take the money out of the Council there's only 63 of them and like you say most of them are on less than 10k anyway. It is the Officers that take the lion's share out of Councils annd there are thousands of them - far too many on far too much money and some of them on pointless tasks that should not be any part of Council business.
In further irony of the whole situation I was told last night that one of the Marple 6 is standing down next election, well I knew that anyway. The problem is that they can't get a Candidate to replace him. As you would expect there are not many young dynamics who have either the time or the inclination to stand for a £9000 + plus per year job. It seems that the most suitable candidate identified is an ex Councillor now 80 years of age. Well here we go again.
It seems that our National politicians get younger whilst our local one's do the opposite. The time is not far off when we'll be digging them up to stand or maybe using cardboard replicas of the one's that have retired/died.
-
I will do that again as I made a mess of it.
Well Simone at the time the current council leader was Deputy Leader the allowance for DL was £1,800pa so I think most people will understand her need to continue working.
-
Wow, the average public sector worker earns more than the average wage. Does that not tell us there is a problem.
Not really. What it tells us is the the average public sector employee is better qualified, and in a job that requires higher level qualifications, than the average private sector worker. This is well known and well documented.
The interesting thing about this is that, AFAIK, it is a relatively recent phenomenon, resulting from the widespread outsourcing of lower level jobs (street cleaning, refuse collection, dinner ladies, car home staff etc etc) from the public sector to the private, thus driving down the average wage and qualification level of private sector workers.
A more like-for-like comparison between public and private sector pay is by qualification and job level (professional, managerial, administrative, skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled etc etc). This presents a different picture. For example it seems that graduates are paid more in the private sector than they are the public, but for non-graduates it's the other way round.
I very much doubt that is true but if so it's scary. I recall at school & uni, if you weren't very ambitious or bright you tended to go to the public sector.
If we really have the most qualified people in public sector jobs, this is a problem, we have the brightest sparks counting A boards and devising licencing plans for such items and the real dunces are driving the economy forward, innovating etc on which our future & children's future depends.
-
Well Duke I happened to notice there board as I walk along Market St at 9am on 27th and I would think that less than half your 45 business had bothered to open. Would seem they just could not be bothered serving local people.
And your point is?
1/2 of the 45 businesses in vicinity were closed and less than 1/2 of those had an A board which together amounts to a little over 3 1/2 sq mtrs in the rather large pedestrianised area of some 800 sq metres.
Remind me why you think we are paying a team of council staff an average of £28k each for 3 years to come up with a solution to what you apear to have proved to be a non-existent problem
-
I recall at school & uni, if you weren't very ambitious or bright you tended to go to the public sector.
If we really have the most qualified people in public sector jobs, this is a problem, we have the brightest sparks counting A boards and devising licencing plans for such items and the real dunces are driving the economy forward, innovating etc on which our future & children's future depends.
Duke, you haven't been paying attention. ;) Most unskilled jobs (i.e. those for which you don't need qualifications) are now in the private sector, for reasons which I have explained above, and which are obvious and well known. Jobs such as street cleaning, refuse collection, dinner ladies, care home staff etc etc have moved from the public to the private sector over the past thirty years or so. These are vital jobs that have to be done, but no-one would seriously suggest that they are 'driving the economy forward, innovating etc'. And by the way, it would be polite not to describe people who do them as 'dunces'.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/27/public-private-sector-pay
-
I recall at school & uni, if you weren't very ambitious or bright you tended to go to the public sector.
If we really have the most qualified people in public sector jobs, this is a problem, we have the brightest sparks counting A boards and devising licencing plans for such items and the real dunces are driving the economy forward, innovating etc on which our future & children's future depends.
Duke, you haven't been paying attention. ;) Most unskilled jobs (i.e. those for which you don't need qualifications) are now in the private sector, for reasons which I have explained above, and which are obvious and well known. Jobs such as street cleaning, refuse collection, dinner ladies, care home staff etc etc have moved from the public to the private sector over the past thirty years or so. These are vital jobs that have to be done, but no-one would seriously suggest that they are 'driving the economy forward, innovating etc'. And by the way, it would be polite not to describe people who do them as 'dunces'.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/27/public-private-sector-pay
To be honest Dave, I was rather hoping the 'dunces' were those counting A boards and occupying themselves fro 9 - 4.30 with th eother civil servants etc where they can't harm the outside world.
The day you need to refer to the Guardian is when your argument has gone.
-
If we are going to be accurate she "gave up" her job as an HE Lecturer when she was "Deputy" Leader of the Council and did both jobs for many years in tandem and received incomes from both. Which gives an indication of how much time was applied to being Deputy Leader. You can't be at a meeting with council officers when you are delivering a lecture to a room full of students - that's too good a trick.
If you take the current Council Executive at least half of them have full - time jobs/businesses whilst the other half are past retirement age, one of them is over 80 years of age. I am not casting any aspersions about anybody's ability/commitment but does that seem to you like a good mix for running an organisation. Half with other full - time jobs the other half - Dad's Army. To me that does not support, commitment,energy, application, etc. etc.
I don't begrudge the Council Leader her 40 grand per year, that's my point I think she should get more, I think that all Councillors should get more. Then we might attract different types to be Councillors.
Well as at the time the current leader was Deputy Leader the DLs allowance was £1,800 I think she can be forgive for continuing to work in education.
I do begrudge the CE his exhorbitant salary - it is far too much for what is expected, and there are other officers on similar pay to him. It isn't the Councillors that take the money out of the Council there's only 63 of them and like you say most of them are on less than 10k anyway. It is the Officers that take the lion's share out of Councils annd there are thousands of them - far too many on far too much money and some of them on pointless tasks that should not be any part of Council business.
In further irony of the whole situation I was told last night that one of the Marple 6 is standing down next election, well I knew that anyway. The problem is that they can't get a Candidate to replace him. As you would expect there are not many young dynamics who have either the time or the inclination to stand for a £9000 + plus per year job. It seems that the most suitable candidate identified is an ex Councillor now 80 years of age. Well here we go again.
It seems that our National politicians get younger whilst our local one's do the opposite. The time is not far off when we'll be digging them up to stand or maybe using cardboard replicas of the one's that have retired/died.
At least council officers have to actually apply for their jobs and go through a proper recruitment process unlike councillors who seem to only have to say 'I'm sort of interested in being a councillor' and then the next minute, they're in! Maybe Councillors should have to go through a process - prove that they have the required experience and qualifications before they are allowed to stand as a Councillor? Then they could be paid a better rate for the job and young people might see it as an attractive career option? Might get more young people actually interested in politics as well.
-
With respect thats absolute rubbish. Councillors are not there as a level of management. They are there as politicans to set the political agenda not implement the management processes required to bring about the political agenda. Coucillors are not there to micro manage but to set the wider agenda.
Thus we live in a Lib Dem Authority which I would expect to be fundamentally different to Tory Trafford or Labour Tameside irrespective of how good or bad the officers are.
And I thought Coucillors did apply for the job, its called an election, which they can win so they can take abuse, get rewarded baddly, lose pension when taking time off work for public duties and all the other goodies that go with the role.
-
Obviously,
as usual, we are all agreed.
Happy New Year !
-
Thus we live in a Lib Dem Authority which I would expect to be fundamentally different to Tory Trafford or Labour Tameside irrespective of how good or bad the officers.
Whilst that is true, I think there is a fundamental problem with funding. The local council should've raising all their money locally through council tax rather than have central hand outs, on that basis, when the local authority over spends, local people suffer and can vote the council out in favour of a more prudent one.
The recent row over central cuts would then be irrelevant and we would get the local council we deserve.
-
Oh dear, I seem to be starting 2013 by agreeing with Duke. :o
I have a lot of sympathy for that view, and it would certainly do a lot to revive local democracy, which is pretty moribund. But if we went down that road, I think we'd have to do it with business rates as well as council tax - i.e. make them variable, and raised and spent locally. I can see it working in relatively affluent Stockport, but areas like Manchester and Tameside, with high levels of relative deprivation, would never be able to balance their books on council tax alone, I fear.
-
Oh dear, I seem to be starting 2013 by agreeing with Duke. :o
I have a lot of sympathy for that view, and it would certainly do a lot to revive local democracy, which is pretty moribund. But if we went down that road, I think we'd have to do it with business rates as well as council tax - i.e. make them variable, and raised and spent locally. I can see it working in relatively affluent Stockport, but areas like Manchester and Tameside, with high levels of relative deprivation, would never be able to balance their books on council tax alone, I fear.
In an ideal world, the council tax & rates will be transferred to a % of income & profits respectively.
As for areas of deprivation, the current system of throwing money at deprived areas has not worked. If local economies thrive money being spent by the state, the likes of Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle etc will be thriving over the past 40 years.
My way, people will vote out the inefficient councils and it is in the council's interest to maximise the incomes of business and people in it's area - i.e. help them excel rather than keep them needy (a bit of Marx for 2013).
-
I will do that again as I made a mess of it.
Well Simone at the time the current council leader was Deputy Leader the allowance for DL was £1,800pa so I think most people will understand her need to continue working.
Wheels, I think you've made another mess,
I think you've missed a decimal point out in your sums. Which is easily done but very misleading to readers. The point that I try to make is not really about her two salaries - good luck to her. It is more about her application and commitment to her then role as Deputy Leader of the Council which I am sure you will agree is a responsible job when she had the distraction of another responsible job. The bigger point I would like to press is that local government (which to a large extent governs our lives and the communities that we live in) the length and breadth of the country is and has been in a mess for many years. The reason for this IMHO is that in a large part it is policy managed by part - time over the hill amateurs that often have other jobs as well. At the time we speak of your beloved now Council Leader was on of those two-jobbers.
I only use the Councillor in example and by all accounts she is very able but she can't be in two places at once. I do not really criticise her but more so the system that allows such a situation.
-
No I have not made a mess S. The DL allowance on Stockport MBC is £1,800 thats One thousand Eight Hundred, or at least it was then. It might now be £2000.
Its all there for any member of the public to see.
-
Dear Wheels,
Where do you get your information from ? I am intrigued, by the way you've still not told me where you got your information about ..."National Legislation for A boards". You just ignored my request.
In the political year 2011/12, Cllr Derbyshire, I presume it is her we refer to, claimed the following allowances;
£9554.52 Ordinary Councillors Allowances.
£16,213.76 Special Responsibility Allowance for being Deputy Leader.
Like you say Wheels it is ..."all in the public domain". So which public domain are you looking at ? I thought that there was only one but it seems that you have one to yourself.
Where have you got your figure from - have you been making things up again ?
-
Well Duke I happened to notice there board as I walk along Market St at 9am on 27th and I would think that less than half your 45 business had bothered to open. Would seem they just could not be bothered serving local people.
Whilst yo are around Wheels, I'm still interested as to what your point is?
1/2 of the 45 businesses in vicinity were closed and less than 1/2 of those had an A board which together amounts to a little over 3 1/2 sq mtrs in the rather large pedestrianised area of some 800 sq metres.
Remind me why you think we are paying a team of council staff an average of £28k each for 3 years to come up with a solution to what you apear to have proved to be a non-existent problem
-
Simone,
Let me try and explain simply for you.
The DL has to be drawn from the Executive. The Executives Allowance is 14,476.66, the DLs/Ex members Allowance is 16,213.75 thus the difference is 1,737.09 being the amount identified by the independent panel as the value of the DLs role which is limited only to standing in for the leader when he/she is not available.
In previous year the panel showed the DL allowance as a separate figure.
Now stop trying to suggest I have this wrong I can only think its a lack of understanding on your part rather than being deliberately misleading.
-
Simone,
Let me try and explain simply for you.
The DL has to be drawn from the Executive. The Executives Allowance is 14,476.66, the DLs/Ex members Allowance is 16,213.75 thus the difference is 1,737.09 being the amount identified by the independent panel as the value of the DLs role which is limited only to standing in for the leader when he/she is not available.
In previous year the panel showed the DL allowance as a separate figure.
Now stop trying to suggest I have this wrong I can only think its a lack of understanding on your part rather than being deliberately misleading.
I think you are being misleading Wheels. How much to the position of DL cost us mug council tax payers per yer?
Well Duke I happened to notice there board as I walk along Market St at 9am on 27th and I would think that less than half your 45 business had bothered to open. Would seem they just could not be bothered serving local people.
Whilst you are around Wheels, I'm still interested as to what your point is?
1/2 of the 45 businesses in vicinity were closed and less than 1/2 of those had an A board which together amounts to a little over 3 1/2 sq mtrs in the rather large pedestrianised area of some 800 sq metres.
Remind me why you think we are paying a team of council staff an average of £28k each for 3 years to come up with a solution to what you apear to have proved to be a non-existent problem
-
Lets try again Duke, its a problem because Disability Stockport will take the Council to Court seeking that they (the Council) implement national legislation. Its no good ranting and raving saying ignore DS all that will happen is that they will win in the Courts and you and I would pay for that.
Now the council have come up with a scheme that will not cost traders anything so whats you problem.
Regarding the 27th as you say only half the traders could be bothered to open and yet there were still 12 A boards out a potential problem to the disabled and those with poor sight. Quite apart from the fact that they are ugly things scattered about our streets.
-
As we are all being versatile Ill try another way as well.
Wheels, this National Legislation that you refer to where is it, where can I find it ? This the third time of asking. If you can point me to it then I will concede but I can't find any "LEGISLATION". So how can Disability Stockport sue to prosecute a law that doesn't exist ?
In relation to the good Councillor do you agree with the following: Over the last several years she has drawn in excess of £25k per year in allowances from SMBC. Let us put aside what responsibility it was awarded for, she got it. Prior to May 2012 she was also working as a HE Lecturer. Do you think that combining these roles is a good thing for the people of Stockport ? How did she attend daytime meetings for the Council when she was Teaching elsewhere?
2/3 Years ago we had a Councillor in Stockport who worked all week in London. She did it for years,she only came to Stockport for full Council meetings yet she still drew her allowance in full. Is this right ?
-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66
Section 115E
-
My grandson just found that on his new tablet.
Hope that is of help simon.
-
Wheels, this National Legislation that you refer to where is it, where can I find it ? This the third time of asking. If you can point me to it then I will concede but I can't find any "LEGISLATION". So how can Disability Stockport sue to prosecute a law that doesn't exist ?
Simon
He found it on an app called google.
Maybe you should come to stockport college with me in a couple of weeks and do the european computer driving licence course (ECDL) with me.
Could save petrol by sharing a car.
May be wheels has got a rickshaw to take me in?
-
Wheels, this National Legislation that you refer to where is it, where can I find it ? This the third time of asking. If you can point me to it then I will concede but I can't find any "LEGISLATION". So how can Disability Stockport sue to prosecute a law that doesn't exist ?
Simon
He found it on an app called google.
Maybe you should come to stockport college with me in a couple of weeks and do the european computer driving licence course (ECDL) with me.
Could save petrol by sharing a car.
May be wheels has got a rickshaw to take me in?
Legislation that HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED!!!
As it happens, Disability Stockport will need to obtain a licence for their hanging sign if plans go ahead.
I can't see what Disability Stockport are moaning about, they just want to make themselves appear important, the council should reduce their budget by whatever it costs to run this scheme.
Incidentally, my old local council in Basingstoke threw together a code of conduct for this sort of thing costing nothing and solving the problem that doesn't really exist & allowing businesses to get on with it without sticking their nose in. It's strange that councils with the lowest budget and least interference also are the wealthiest areas. They don't have a load of whiners who theink the world owes them a living to constantly appease.
-
In the eyes of the law every un-authorised sign is a violation.
If it costs businesses nothing to register, what is the problem.
Seems like SMBC are covering their backsides, which as a council tax payer can only be a good thing
-
Thank you Blue and further thanks to your Grandson.
Sadly, I am aware of the 1980 Highways act that you have guided me to and it does not provide an answer the question.
The RNIB have been campaigning for 12 years through this act to try and get "A" boards banned, nationally. Other than persuading a handful of Councils to devise individual licensing schemes that usually cause more problems than if they'd left the issue alone,and they cost money, they have met with little success. This is mainly because there is nothing enforceable by law in this act that enables them to achieve this. That is what legislation has to be by definition - enforceable by law.
I'd like to come on the course with you and I'd certainly like a ride in wheel's rickshaw but I'm off shortly to find some winter sunshine for a few weeks so perhaps we can discuss when I return in early February.
-
Thank you Blue and further thanks to your Grandson.
Sadly, I am aware of the 1980 Highways act that you have guided me to and it does not provide an answer the question.
The RNIB have been campaigning for 12 years through this act to try and get "A" boards banned, nationally. Other than persuading a handful of Councils to devise individual licensing schemes that usually cause more problems than if they'd left the issue alone,and they cost money, they have met with little success. This is mainly because there is nothing enforceable by law in this act that enables them to achieve this. That is what legislation has to be by definition - enforceable by law.
I'd like to come on the course with you and I'd certainly like a ride in wheel's rickshaw but I'm off shortly to find some winter sunshine for a few weeks so perhaps we can discuss when I return in early February.
As Wheels pointed out, there isn't really a problem, certainly no more so than street furniture, trees etc.
As we have seen, there is no breach of any law, no need to cover anyone's back etc.
Incidently, the current draft required £5m public liability to get a licence, no small retailer would normally need that level of insurance. It's a hammer to crack a non-existent nut.