Sheffield City Council meeting - An important Invitation

[Anna B]

Well given that most of the list are planning decisions, and that it's councillors that ultimately make planning decisions, that's quite easy isn't it.

What else is on the list, the graves park things. The trustee's are a group of councillors, not employees of the council.

 

The fact that Anna and you apparently DON'T know how these decisions are made, or, alternatively are deliberately trying to misplace responsibility for these decisions with employee's tells us a lot though.

 

So do tell. How are these decisions made? If you know don't keep it to yourself. And don't kid yourself they're doing what the Sheffield people want.

 

It seems we're paying £3.3 million to 37 advisors / executives who either can't advise or can't save the councillors from their own bad decisions and simply follow orders.

 

Odd that we pay John Mothersole £200,200 just to be a puppet of the council. We're not getting much for our money are we?

[Cyclone]

I've answered that about 3 times now, read the thread.

[rinzwind]

So do tell. How are these decisions made? If you know don't keep it to yourself. And don't kid yourself they're doing what the Sheffield people want.

 

It seems we're paying £3.3 million to 37 advisors / executives who either can't advise or can't save the councilors from their own bad decisions and simply follow orders.

 

Odd that we pay John Mothersole £200,200 just to be a puppet of the council. We're not getting much for our money are we?

 

I don't think councilors really make any decisions at all. I think the civil service selects a few things they want and present those as the only options to the councilors. If a councilor wants to do something different the civil servants try to talk them out of it.

 

Councilors won't know much about lots of things. They rely on the civil service for advice. I think John Mothersole is the real power behind the council and I think the budget the councilors just passed proves it.

Edited March 9, 2015 by rinzwind

[*_ash_*]

Left means socialist, the lib dems are not socialist.

 

If that was to my comment, then you're right, but I think Libs are just Labour who want to/have smoked spliffs

[rinzwind]

If that was to my comment, then you're right, but I think Libs are just Labour who want to/have smoked spliffs

 

I think partisan divisions are distracting us from the goal of reducing outrageous executive salaries. I will support any councilor that pledges to substantially reduce the £3.3m bill for the 37 executives.

 

If you ask me the main party in this city, Labour, bullied through the budget by heckling, ignoring and acting like children on the day the council debated and voted on it. It was already a foregone conclusion that the budget would be passed because the Labour party have an overwhelming majority. Any councilors that tried to influence executive pay were not able to. Either because they couldn't be heard over the din or because they were simply being rudely ignored by the majority labour party.

 

Whilever the Labour party have their majority they do not need to listen to the public or even act like grown ups during the debate. They can just do whatever they want. To get any meaningful democracy in Sheffield the Labour party needs to loose it's huge majority.

Edited March 10, 2015 by rinzwind

[*_ash_*]

I think partisan divisions are distracting us from the goal of reducing outrageous executive salaries. I will support any councilor that pledges to substantially reduce the £3.3m bill for the 37 executives.

 

Well this is based on the premise of, and conclusion, that they ARE doing a bad job, and aren't worth those wages.

 

I won't argue that, because I doubt I'll ever vote 'left' in a place with a large population, however, do you think you can find people and reward them with a reasonable wage to suit their capability of running a major city?

 

You said £80 you would pay them. How realistic do you think this is?

 

Would you trust any person who substantially reduces this as you say, in exchange for a city run extremely badly? That seems awfully naive.

 

If you ask me the main party in this city, Labour, bullied through the budget by heckling, ignoring and acting like children on the day the council debated and voted on it. It was already a foregone conclusion that the budget would be passed because the Labour party have an overwhelming majority. Any councilors that tried to influence executive pay were not able to. Either because they couldn't be heard over the din or because they were simply being rudely ignored by the majority labour party.

 

Two words for this. Party Whips.

 

To add: whether on a national scale or local one.

 

Whilever the Labour party have their majority they do not need to listen to the public or even act like grown ups during the debate. They can just do whatever they want. To get any meaningful democracy the Labour party needs to loose it's huge majority.

 

Well here I agree, but though I probably fit closer to Lib dem values than Labour ones (the spliff comment was a joke btw, though online sarcasm often doesn't show ), experience showed me that when in full charge [LibDem] were probably worse than Labour in full control.

[rinzwind]

Well this is based on the premise of, and conclusion, that they ARE doing a bad job, and aren't worth those wages.

 

Turning down 2 million pounds of free money given out just for not raising council tax IS a bad job.

 

I won't argue that, because I doubt I'll ever vote 'left' in a place with a large population, however, do you think you can find people and reward them with a reasonable wage to suit their capability of running a major city?

 

You said £80 you would pay them. How realistic do you think this is?

 

Not realistic at all. It was a flippant remark pointing out that people on workfare programs are expected to work for as little as this. It can be taken as the minimum required to live on. How much do I really think? I think they should get paid the same as everybody else.

 

Would you trust any person who substantially reduces this as you say, in exchange for a city run extremely badly? That seems awfully naive.

 

No I would not trust any person. Also there is no reason to expect that you would get a city run any worse. The whole point is to run the city better.

 

I expect the not so senior management of the civil service is brimming with optimistic young go-getters that know their jobs inside out and think they could do better than their boss for less than £50k a year. The only reason they don't get a chance is because it's next to impossible for their seniors to lose their jobs.

 

To suggest the civil service up and down the country can't promote or recruit suitable people is entirely false. By tying their salaries to existing pay grades in other sectors, they actually factor out the majority of candidates on purpose and make their own recruitment intentionally too difficult. There aren't too many people already earning nearly £200k that would be acceptable for the post and who would also be willing to take a pay cut.

 

Two words for this. Party Whips.

 

So the party whips get our councilors to act like a gang of hooligans in public debates. Therefore parties without whips or with whips that don't do that are the way to move forward.

Edited March 10, 2015 by rinzwind

[Cyclone]

I think partisan divisions are distracting us from the goal of reducing outrageous executive salaries. I will support any councilor that pledges to substantially reduce the £3.3m bill for the 37 executives.

 

If you ask me the main party in this city, Labour, bullied through the budget by heckling, ignoring and acting like children on the day the council debated and voted on it. It was already a foregone conclusion that the budget would be passed because the Labour party have an overwhelming majority. Any councilors that tried to influence executive pay were not able to. Either because they couldn't be heard over the din or because they were simply being rudely ignored by the majority labour party.

 

Whilever the Labour party have their majority they do not need to listen to the public or even act like grown ups during the debate. They can just do whatever they want. To get any meaningful democracy in Sheffield the Labour party needs to loose it's huge majority.

 

Why aren't you standing for the council with that as your primary campaign goal then?

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2015 at 08:05 ----------

 

Turning down 2 million pounds of free money given out just for not raising council tax IS a bad job.

 

 

 

Did you not understand the explanation about how that is a one off payment and would leave the council with a larger shortfall next year, and then the year after...

[LeMaquis]

I think partisan divisions are distracting us from the goal of reducing outrageous executive salaries. I will support any councilor that pledges to substantially reduce the £3.3m bill for the 37 executives.

 

The council's budget is many, many times that and includes responsibility for education, social services, housing, social care, libraries, roads, refuse, the environment, etc, etc.

 

The fact that your vote is determined by something as small and unimportant as executive salaries underlines how narrow-minded you are.

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2015 at 08:16 ----------

 

The hole in the road with the tram flying over the top would have been a sensational engineering sight to behold.

It was allowed to become a no go area due to lack of policing just as has happened around the Market areas.

 

Trams flying over a hole in the road. Now you really have lost it.

 

Castle Square was a dump over-populated with drunks. That's not the police's fault. It was a bad design and needed filling in.

[rinzwind]

The council's budget is many, many times that and includes responsibility for education, social services, housing, social care, libraries, roads, refuse, the environment, etc, etc.

 

The fact that your vote is determined by something as small and unimportant as executive salaries underlines how narrow-minded you are.

 

The executives are almost entirely responsible for education, social services, housing, social care, libraries, roads, refuse, the environment, etc, etc.

 

If you or your elected representative want to change council policy on any of those issues then you will have to deal with one of these executives. I believe these executives are responsible for most of the criticisms people have about Sheffield council.

 

Cutting back the pay of the council executives sends a strong message that the people of Sheffield will not tolerate the mismanagement of our city by self serving and overpaid civil servants.

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2015 at 10:16 ----------

 

Why aren't you standing for the council with that as your primary campaign goal then?

 

The thought had occurred to me. The obvious reasons why not are, no time, no money, too vexatious, wouldn't get elected. Just because I'm not standing though, that doesn't mean I can't think.

 

Did you not understand the explanation about how that is a one off payment and would leave the council with a larger shortfall next year, and then the year after...

 

Yes I did and I think it's irrelevant. Find the money next year from something else and do the same again the year after. Go get the shortfall from Capita or Kier or one of he other big companies that Sheffield council is so fond of giving big contracts to. Don't presume to steal our money because there isn't any left to steal.

Edited March 10, 2015 by rinzwind