"You have no authority, Jackie Weaver"

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
I assume that was a town or city councillor rather than a parish councillor.
County, in a two tier authority at the time, now unitary.

The allowances at Durham County Council are fairly typical.

A basic of £13,300, but many get top ups of hundreds or thousands for 'special responsibilities'.

At the top, leader Simon Henig pulls in best part of a grand a week.

As is said locally, a lot of the retired miners on the council 'earn' more there than they ever did down the pit.

https://www.durham.gov.uk/media/299...llorsAllowances18191.pdf?m=636948285117070000
 

DCLane

Found in the Yorkshire hills ...
My Mum stood for parish councillor in a small parish council. About 50 votes would have won it. She got 2 despite being promosed votes from lots of people she knew; hers plus one other - not my Dad.
 
OP
Ajax Bay

Ajax Bay

Guru
Location
East Devon
Those 'allowances' are taxable as employment income, including:
  • Basic allowance
  • Special responsibility allowance
  • Dependants’ Carers’ Allowance
  • Co-Optees’ Allowance
 
Zoom meetings can be difficult sometimes. Throwing a strop on one isn't the best idea.
You can say that again
  1. CNN chief legal expert and former federal prosecutor and well regarded for his succinct views was fired for playing with his .... during the break, camera on.
  2. Swansea Lass on BBC Wales live had her xxx toy standing proud and prominent on the shelf behind her just 2 weeks ago. And she looked as decent as a regular churchgoer.
  3. We had minor hiccups in office meeting especially in the early month - pets traversing the table top, kids flashing, putting on shirt, adjusting the bra etc. What clearly went out of the door is facial grooming on the part of the male gender. Felt sorry for colleagues with young kids.
I now have casual shirt and formal shirt nearby for quick swaps just in case. However it was unanimous that no recording would take place.
 

lane

Veteran
Unfortunately you see it in both sides of the political spectrum and at the highest levels. I seem to recall the back benchers in the original Spitting Image were sheep baaing. The treatment of MP's from minority parties is quite often akin to full on bullying. A shame as they often have sensible and worthwhile contributions to make. In a utopia I would ban political parties and make it compulsory for ministers to have a working knowledge of the areas they are responsible for. However it will never happen and they will continue to tow their party lines at all levels wether sensible, nice or not like the flock of sheep they mimic so well. :rolleyes:
I worked for a Borough Council once and outside the chamber councilors from different parties were generally happy to have a friendly chat from what I saw.
 
OP
Ajax Bay

Ajax Bay

Guru
Location
East Devon
Court rules remote meetings cannot continue after May 7

28 April 2021 The High Court has ruled today that from May 7, council meetings in England must take place "in person" – dashing hopes that remote meetings would be able to continue after the coronavirus restrictions which allow them lapse.
LGC understands that the shadow cabinet’s request to work with the government to find space in the legislative timetable to discuss allowing local government remote meetings to continue has also been turned down.
The case brought by The Association of Democratic Services Officers, Lawyers in Local Government and Hertfordshire CC concerned whether councils already have the powers needed to hold online meetings through flexibility in current laws which date back to 1972. It received the backing of communities secretary Robert Jenrick.
The judgement by Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Chamberlain concluded:
“The Secretary of State was correct in November 2016 and July 2019 to say that primary legislation would be required to allow local authority "meetings" under the 1972 Act to take place remotely. In our view, once the flexibility regulations cease to apply, such meetings must take place at a single, specified geographical location; attending a meeting at such a location means physically going to it; and being "present" at such a meeting involves physical presence at that location.
“We recognise that there are powerful arguments in favour of permitting remote meetings. But, as the consultation documents show, there are also arguments against doing so. The decision whether to permit some or all local authority meetings to be conducted remotely, and if so, how and subject to what safeguards, involves difficult policy choices on which there is likely to be a range of competing views."



“These choices have been made legislatively for Scotland by the Scottish Parliament and for Wales by the Senedd. In England, they are for Parliament, not the courts.”
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
This ruling will mean that council meetings will continue to attract just the old stale pale brigade rather than moving with the times. If you want something done, ask a busy person, forcing people to attend face to face for every meeting in this day and age is ludicrous.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
This ruling will mean that council meetings will continue to attract just the old stale pale brigade rather than moving with the times. If you want something done, ask a busy person, forcing people to attend face to face for every meeting in this day and age is ludicrous.
It is very tempting to say the crusty old local councillors should be dragged into the 21st century, but that fails to grasp the difference between a public and a private meeting.

I doubt many people on here have routinely attended the former.

The public has a right to attend, and in some cases, speak.

That is very difficult to manage online.

As a general point, the more people involved in an online meeting, the harder it is to manage.

A key decision might attract dozens of interested members of the public.

Leaving aside the public - it's true they don't bother to attend most of the time - many council meetings have a lot more participants than the average business meeting.

There could be 50 or councillors at a full council meeting, and often 20 or so at a committee meeting.

I suspect we've all noticed how quickly a large Zoom meeting can become shambolic, and that's without the adversarial nature of politics.

Had that parish council meeting been held traditionally, a skilled and authoritative chairman and officer would have prevented the worst of the chaotic scenes we saw.

In some ways, it was an argument against online meetings, not for them.

Not every member of the public will have access to the technology - should those people be excluded from taking part in local democracy?

As the High Court judges said, there are many things for and against taking meetings online.

It certainly requires a more detailed examination before deciding than simply letting an emergency measure run on.

Which is what the judges said.
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
It is very tempting to say the crusty old local councillors should be dragged into the 21st century, but that fails to grasp the difference between a public and a private meeting.

I doubt many people on here have routinely attended the former.

The public has a right to attend, and in some cases, speak.

That is very difficult to manage online.

As a general point, the more people involved in an online meeting, the harder it is to manage.

A key decision might attract dozens of interested members of the public.

Leaving aside the public - it's true they don't bother to attend most of the time - many council meetings have a lot more participants than the average business meeting.

There could be 50 or councillors at a full council meeting, and often 20 or so at a committee meeting.

I suspect we've all noticed how quickly a large Zoom meeting can become shambolic, and that's without the adversarial nature of politics.

Had that parish council meeting been held traditionally, a skilled and authoritative chairman and officer would have prevented the worst of the chaotic scenes we saw.

In some ways, it was an argument against online meetings, not for them.

Not every member of the public will have access to the technology - should those people be excluded from taking part in local democracy?

As the High Court judges said, there are many things for and against taking meetings online.

It certainly requires a more detailed examination before deciding than simply letting an emergency measure run on.

Which is what the judges said.
An online meeting is far easier to moderate, as you simply mute everyone and ask them to raise their hands. In addition, there is no reason why the meeting has to be online only, a hybrid approach if people remote and some in person is entirely feasible. I have been doing that for over 20 years. No one needs be excluded as they are now.
 

BoldonLad

Veteran
Location
South Tyneside
It is very tempting to say the crusty old local councillors should be dragged into the 21st century, but that fails to grasp the difference between a public and a private meeting.

I doubt many people on here have routinely attended the former.

The public has a right to attend, and in some cases, speak.

That is very difficult to manage online.

As a general point, the more people involved in an online meeting, the harder it is to manage.

A key decision might attract dozens of interested members of the public.

Leaving aside the public - it's true they don't bother to attend most of the time - many council meetings have a lot more participants than the average business meeting.

There could be 50 or councillors at a full council meeting, and often 20 or so at a committee meeting.

I suspect we've all noticed how quickly a large Zoom meeting can become shambolic, and that's without the adversarial nature of politics.

Had that parish council meeting been held traditionally, a skilled and authoritative chairman and officer would have prevented the worst of the chaotic scenes we saw.

In some ways, it was an argument against online meetings, not for them.

Not every member of the public will have access to the technology - should those people be excluded from taking part in local democracy?

As the High Court judges said, there are many things for and against taking meetings online.

It certainly requires a more detailed examination before deciding than simply letting an emergency measure run on.

Which is what the judges said.
It is, thankfully, many years since I worked, but, when I did, the general rule was:

The more people at a meeting, the less likely a meaningful outcome, or, indeed, any outcome

similarly for committees, the more members, the less gets achieved

Government, particularly local government, personified IMHO
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
LeetleGreyCells Meet The Author: Cycling Legends - Tom Simpson CC Cafe - General Chat 4
Top Bottom