DJBrenton 738 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 UKIP Councillors David Sprason and Lynton Yates proposed at the Leicestershire County Council budget meeting to cut members expenses saving over £102,000 the Tories and Lib Dems voted against it Do you mean the Lynton Yates who doesn't need expenses because hes a millionaire from the care homes he used to own? "The standards committee of Leicestershire CC has condemned as very serious two Tory councillors' breach of the code of conduct. Lynton Yates and Diana Goodman, who own care homes, have received police cautions for voting in favour of a budget amendment that included provision for care homes (LGC 10/9/99)." http://www.lgcplus.com/leicestershire-standards-committee-condemns-councillors/1407206.article And the David Sprason who was sacked as Conservative deputy leader of Leicestershire County Council for downloading porn on his office laptop? UKIP really aren't fussy about who they have stand are they? And people keep trying to present the main parties as full of corrupt MP's! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FLY2 10,108 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 Oh Lord DJB, don't get them all agitated just before a meet up. You know alcohol and politics don't mix. We don't want brawling and uncontrolled violence amongst mature and senior citizens on the streets of Nottingham. It doesn't look good in the papers. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DJBrenton 738 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 Councillors expenses are an interesting point though. Historically, Conservative councillors used to be businessmen who had busy lives and also didn't need the money from expenses. Labour councillors were more likely to be 'working men' who would need to be compensated for the time they took off work. Originally, the job of being a councillor required far fewer meetings than it would now. There are two schools of thought as to how this came about. The Conservative view might be that Labour councillors realised they could make more money out of expenses than from a normal job so inflated the meeting requirements into a full-time income. The Labour version would be that the business of a council grew to the point where being a councillor demanded almost full-time work. There's probably some truth in both versions. In fact, many councillors do devote themselves full-time to the job, and attendance allowance and other expenses are their only, or main income. I have no idea whether , in this day and age, with electronic communication, that is necessary, but if it is, then it's appropriate to reward councillors correspondingly. If being a councillor was only possible if you had an independent income or no job anyway then we wouldn't be getting the right type of person standing IMHO.Of course there will be some misuse of the expenses and attendance allowances but that's a different matter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tomlinson 879 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 In reading all the above comments, I think about an introductory text from George Orwell's, ' Keep The Aspidistra Flying. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not money, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not money, it profiteth me nothing. Money suffereth long, and is kind; money envieth not; money vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. . . . And now abideth faith, hope, money, these three; but the greatest of these is money. I Corinthians xiii (adapted) Which I think about says it all about money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bilbraborn 1,594 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 Is being a councilor the only voluntary job? Not at all. There are many scout and guide leaders, charity workers and others volunteering for whatever who pay their own expenses. I am not suggesting that councilors should keep putting their hands in their pockets, but I believe that they do milk it. I worked with a chef who worked in a small Derbyshire council headquarters. He told me that the workers ( typists and the like) had to pay in full for their meals in the restaurant. Councillors did not. And to add to this, they often brought their families and friends along for free meals even on days they did not have to be there. My own grandfather was an Alderman (Labour) in the Nottingham City Council from the war until he died in 1968. As a train driver, he was able to have time off for meetings. However, he only claimed his expense if he lost a full days pay. He always said that the money in the council coffers was for the benefit of the good people of Nottingham, not to make civic dignitaries rich. I did not agree with all of his politics but I respected him for that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mudgie49 401 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 Money don't get every thing it's true,but what it don't get I can't use,so give me money. So are we back to posting politics and politicians?,it all ends up with,corruption,lies,greed,and self promotion. Democracy - A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. Nice sounding words.I wonder when,or if this will ever happen in the so called civilized world. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.