ValerieYour comment was as quoted, and can be seen by anybody who revisits your posting made at 22:24 on 28/07/07. In response I asked you whether you would similarly condemn a Labour authority which had altered its allowance structure in the same way and you declined to respond, which I took to be a "no".As I understand it your position then altered a tad from opposition to increased allowances (by non-Labour councils) per se, to increased allowances following cuts. Having already told us that the former administration didn't make cuts, you then changed your view on this and told us that it did. Which may leave some people wondering how you could justify making provision yourself for the increases which you now so vociferously oppose, having made cuts of your own.I am not sure, from recollection, just how long it was after making budget cuts that your own administration increased allowances by similar percentages (as percentage rather than quantum would appear to be the basis of your contrived outrage) on the two occasions which it did in recent years (once under the leadership of Councillor Connelly), but I have requested the necessary information and will provide it in due course should it contradict in any way the position which you are now taking.With regard to your last question, I reproduce below the posting I made yesterday on ChiswickW4.com in response to a similar request for my own position on the matter, which also gives the lie to John's untypically dishonest (and frankly ridiculous) suggestion that, as an Executive member, I am "well-heeled" and work only a few hours each week:The issue at hand is that the existing pay structure took little account of the huge volume of extra work incurred by Executive councillors following the forced introduction, by the current government, of the Cabinet system.Brendan is completely wrong to say Hounslow councillors have "put themselves in a position" of deciding our own pay levels. We are required to do so, nothing would please me more if someone were to take this obligation away from local authorities. I wholeheartedly agree that it is quite wrong for councillors to have to make this decision.Anybody assuming Executive responsibility now must either (a) give up any prospect of holding down a proper job and commit themselves to it full-time (as I have done); (b) give up sufficient hours as to hold down two full-time jobs at the same time, or (c) do the job on a part-time basis in a way which does not deliver the standard of service which the post requires.The increases look huge in percentage terms but if you compare the allowances of Executive portfolio holders to the salaries of lead officers, for whom they are responsible, they are still miniscule. And, unlike councillors, lead officers cannot be summarily dismissed after four years without having committed any act of misconduct.I hear and understand the argument that councillors didn't use to receive anything, even out of pocket expenses, and that for that reason this should continue to be the case. This is rather akin to saying that my ten-year-old twins should be sent to work in a mine on account of the fact that other children of a similar age have had to do so in the past.The new levels of remuneration agreed by Borough Council on Tuesday night (either by one vote or the Mayor's casting vote, after a long debate) still fall some way short of those recommended by London Councils, and in my view are not at such a level as not to discourage people with families and/or mortgages from assuming Executive responsibility. In that respect I believe they are something of a fudge, and I said so in debate on Tuesday.The problem is that, having created the Cabinet system and recommended that local authorities increase allowances to appropriate levels, the government has not made any provision to alleviate the increased burden on our budgets. Therefore it follows automatically that any money spent on increases to members' allowances is money which could otherwise be spent on service provision which will inevitably, and not unreasonably, attract criticism.Many of the arguments made in opposition to the proposed increases were entirely valid. To my recollection three Conservatives, four members of the Community Group, Councillor John Connelly and one Liberal Democrat either voted against the proposal or abstained. The recommendation was passed by a whisker, and none of those opposing or abstaining could have predicted with confidence that it would have been passed regardless.The contrived indignation expressed by the Labour Group, who as always voted as one, was insincere, opportunistic and shameful. The money was available precisely because the last Labour administration had put it aside in the 2006/07 budget for similar increases to follow a Labour victory at the 2006 local elections. One Labour member quite openly admitted to me the following day that his Group were "shocked" when I spoke against the recommendation, having calculated that it would pass through safely with the full support of every member of the administration with Labour claiming the moral high ground for having voted against. Had it been defeated, Labour would have been presented with the logisitical problem of having to reintroduce the recommendations with a striaght face in the unlikely event of them forming an administration again in 2010. This is the mentality we are up against.My total annual allowance following the increase is now £25,763, for which I would estimate that I put in a 60-80 hour week. I will leave it to others to judge whether they feel I have my "snout in the trough", or how this might compare with what I might have received for a similar commitment of time in the market. I would respect any view on this which is sincerely held, from whichever quarter, but no cynical political opportunism or desperate comparisons with the K££ns' wholly unnecessary additional housing allowance will be responded to.And for the record, I abstained on the vote on the grounds that I agreed with the increases in principle but in the absence of any assistance we didn't have the money to award them. When I did so I had no indication as to whether the recommendation would be carried or not.Hope this is helpful.
Phil Andrews ● 6516d