Asymetric wrote:Thanks for your prompt reply John S.
I understand that political parties will have agreement on how to vote as they will meet and vote on the policies they put forward etc, but are you saying that a group of Councillors meet before meetings and employ tactical voting when an item is yet to be discussed? If so then what is the point of the meetings and how can others outwith the group influence anything?
No, not tactical voting, but final checking of papers coming forward. In the SNP group; because we play a full role in and support the consensus politics generally adopted in the council, we already have a significant insight into the papers coming forward as we have been involved in their development as they pass through committees. We are not all on the same committees so it is beneficial to check around members that the policy being formulated sits well across the council area and with the policy direction of the SNP Group.
The point of having meetings is to hear the views of all members who wish to express views and adjust, reject or approve the item up for discussion. This regularly happens – the leader of the opposition often picks up on areas to change. It seems to me that Argyll First does not attend Executive Meetings and have all but abandoned their involvement in policy formulation in favour of guerrilla tactics in the media and internet. That is their choice but it does not sit well with the other members who are left doing all the work on committees.
Another thing which has annoyed me is how a proposed 10% pay cut for Councillors can be seen to be self serving? With the impending cuts in public spending and job losses/pay reductions throughout Argyll & Bute Council, I personally think it is a noble and refreshing proposition and was surprised to read that our elected members were not willing to share some of the burden being put on the rest of the employees in Argyll & Bute Council and beyond. Many people are going to be losing their jobs and having their salaries reduced but for the vast majority of Councillors to class sharing some of the burden facing families in Argyll and Bute as a 'self serving motion' is a slap in the face to those families looking at unemployment and reduced salaries.
Argyll First’s proposal was not for a hard pay cut, but to enable councillors to volunteer a 10% pay cut – this is something that Councillors could do prior to this motion anyway - so what purpose did the motion serve? – I suggest it served as a publicity stunt for Argyll First and to embarrass councillors who, for whatever reason, could not afford to do it. Remember the basic salary for Councillors is about £16,000 and for some that is there only source of income.
The whole reason behind the changes in remuneration for councillors which were applied nationally in 2007 was to make being a councillor a salaried position to encourage more normal people to become councillors. The motion would undermine that priciple. I could never have stood if this change had not occurred. Previously only individuals with alternative income sources could consider becoming a councillor which led to councils being full of councillors who were retired, wealthy, or could only give a part time commitment to the job.
Will I volunteer to give up 10% of my salary? Well I could say what I volunteer to do with my income is no more your business than what I spend it on in Tescos. But I’ll say no - I won’t, and I won’t support any proposal to impose wage cuts on any employee of Argyll & Bute Council for budgetary reasons.
I noticed that the Leader of Argyll First was able to cut and paste part of this thread into an email, its a shame he didn't take the time to join up and discuss the issues.
Perhaps the question he will answer is when will Argyll First give a full-time commitment to what are full-time Jobs?
What are the important things for you Isa?
