The far-right web site Conservative Home has an article featuring the work of the far-right Taxpayers' Alliance today in which they say:
Today sees the publication of the Town Hall Rich List, revealing the nearly 3,500 council staff who enjoyed remuneration of more than £100,000 in 2013-14. No fewer than 130 councils had at least 10 employees earning that much with the tally at Haringey Council alone running to 68 members of staff.
It is now reports that a person needs to earn £75,000 a year to buy a property in London.
Shouldn't the Taxpayers' Alliance be reporting the scandal that in London local government now tries to provide services without paying the vast majority of its staff sufficient that they can live in the places they serve?
And maybe, just maybe, they should note that in 2014-15 788,000 had income exceeding £100,000 in the UK, of whom apparently 0.44% work for local authorities and then consider the miracle that they provide their services despite that fact.
But that's not what the far-right do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“It is now reports that a person needs to earn £75,000 a year to buy a property in London.
Shouldn’t the Taxpayers’ Alliance be reporting the scandal that in London local government now tries to provide services without paying the vast majority of its staff sufficient that they can live in the places they serve?”
Are you seriously arguing that it is a scandal that all council staff in London are not on £75,000?
No
I am pointing out the absurdity of the situation
And the TPA argument
what is outrageous is that highedt wages in private and public far outstrip the lowest and people are barely blinking. the sooner laws limiting how much more the highest wage in a company (incl. bonuses) can be than the lowest wage the better.
Why do assume that all public sector workers in London should be able to afford to buy a property in London? Is renting not good enough for them? Sounds like you are a snob.
I post this without comment
Except to note that renting can be more expensive than owning
Robin Hutton; have you no concept of the old gag,
How does the snowplough driver get to work?
The time-bomb ticking (as highlighted here…often) is the growing gap between pay throughout the public sector and the price of property…and lending criteria. That rare beast ‘ someone in the public sector earning £75k’ will need a lender prepared to look at six times earnings to help them buy that average London property or they ‘re going to need a six figure deposit which they’ll have to save while paying steadily increasing London rents (because this particular bank of Mum and Dad won’t be able to help at these levels). The freeze in public salaries has gone on for six or seven years whilst house prices have galloped away. (Surgeons at Bart’s can no longer afford to live close to the hospital where they may be needed at short notice!). What ten years ago seemed pretty good salaries for very senior posts in the Civil Service…the Judiciary for example…will now fund a two bed flat in Chelmsford! And cuts in the order of 30% are on their way to local government. Once again as set out here often ‘Start with an idea of the sort of society you want to live in, then set about paying for it.’ George seems to want a society with nuclear submarines, pot-holes and food banks. Will people vote for it again in 2020, or will politicians finally be honest about taxation?
They’ll vote for it again in 2020 if the Labour Party don’t get their act together PDQ and start chiselling away at the Tory crap, foaming mouth garbage and start demolishing the memes that have ‘infected’ the brains of the populace.
Sod the Overton Window-they need to get started NOW-what are they playing at? We’ve had enough with Milliband et al missing or not even taking shots at open goals.
I agree Simon. We keep hearing that Miliband et al didn’t do enough to rebut the Tory lies about the “crash” and the economy, and that is quite right. Corbyn is taking some brave stands (Trident, and yesterday for example, taking on the military,) but we need more of this.
We should not be afraid to provoke the wrath of the tabloids, because I believe there is much more support for a reasoned left-wing position than is generally accepted. Corbyn has already started getting the arguments out there, and younger people especially are open to them.
Looking at one or two of the responses above its clear to a blind man on a galloping horse the “George” (Osbourne) is not on his own in wanting “a society with nuclear subs,pot holes and food banks.”
The level of deliberate ignorance and malice displayed indicates a growing sociopathic tendency within our fracturing society.
This is simply the latest contribution of this supposedly independent think tank to the maintenance of the “private sector good, public sector bad” meme that’s a fundamental component of the neoliberal doctrine, Richard.
In their world it’s absolutely fine for someone who runs a company that employs hundred/thousands to be paid handsomely, as well as receive above inflation pay rises, bonuses and other “rewards”, without question (“the market” will sort things out, of course). But not for someone managing hundreds/thousands of people in the public sector, and in ever more challenging conditions. These people are after all “second rate”, otherwise they wouldn’t work in the public sector, would they?
On which point, last week I met an old friend who now has a senior position in an East Midlands county council and he tells me they are now on their knees financially. There’s simply nothing left to cut apart from core services. He was however, lamenting (and angry) at the fact that so many service directors and local authority chief executives continue to keep their mouths shut about the dire situation, instead passing cuts off as “transformation”, and other nonsensical terms from the handbook of management speak, and thus covering up the truly appalling state that many/most public services are now in thanks to this government and the last.
Good to see at least one senior person from the NHS breaking cover over the weekend, though. No doubt he’ll be paying the price for his honesty this week.
I fear he will pay that price
And we all will in due course
“Good to see at least one senior person from the NHS breaking cover over the weekend ”
Have you got a link to that?
I was struck by the comments of the Addenbrooks cheif medical bod who resigned recently (reported on this site) that cuts to basic social services are impacting on the NHS.
But we know which meme this leads to: NHS not fit for purpose! As Ivan says more demonisation of the public services. Another four years of this nonsense and a narcoleptic semi-comatose populace swallowing the fecal matter like hot-cakes (sorry for the invective, Richard, the press has been full of Osborne’s piss takes this morning!)
In the Guardian
Funny how these councils still have funds available to provide gold-plated final salary pension schemes, subsidised by taxpayers who cannot afford to fund their own retirement…
Funny how private business has given up its obligations and hopes the state will cover them
hard of hearing- what makes you think taxpayers subsidise this? You like your myths don’t you?
@Simon
Where do you think the money comes from to pay public sector pensions?
Do you honestly think that contributions of circa 12% (or less) payable for 40 years can fund 66% final salary, inflation-linked pensions payable for 25 years or more?
Do some basic maths!!
So we have a generational exchange
So?
“So we have a generational exchange
So?”
The “so” is that without dramatic changes, the generational exchange will collapse under the financial burden. Our current pension system was drawn up at a time when there were around 10 people in work for every pensioner. By the middle of this century that is estimated to fall to 2.2.
‘Hard of Hearing’ misses the point that many local councils have funded schemes, however, these are hugely underfunded for the liabilities they have. However, most central government employees are part of unfunded schemes.
Successive governments have been too scared to make the huge changes that are needed. Average life expectancy is soaring. We need to save more or work longer or expect less. At the moment we are doing virtually none of these things. It might have been fine to reply on 10 workers to generate the tax to pay a pension, it won’t work if we rely on 2. Talk of a ‘generational exchange’ is, I’m afraid to say, indicative of someone who just doesn’t understand the scale of the problem we face.
I have written extensively on this issue and how to face it
Have you?
“So we have a generational exchange”
Indeed, and one party to the exchange seems to be getting a pretty stupendous deal at the expense of the other!
Agreed – in general the old and older are doing too well
Stand by your beds, dust your caps and polish your forelocks! The Third Batallion Royal Uriah Heeps have finally arrived (the ditch you want to die in is on the Right, as always).
If we are going to talk about pension “liabilities” let’s not leave out the public taxpayer subsidies provided by the Government/Public Sector having on its books the pension liabilities of former public sector organisations which were privatised, such as,for example, BT/Openreach, Royal Mail etc. Without which the private sector and others the Uriah Heeps consider their betters like the City of London would not have touched with a barge pole.
And let’s not leave out the largest provided by the public and taxpayer purse for those private firms who have registered and achieved OFSTED accreditation for their apprentice schemes in order to get that public subsidy who then pocketed parts of it by slashing their instructor:apprentice ratio. Laughing all the way to the increased contribution to profits and senior management bonuses this provided at the useful idiots who constantly harp on, like a broken needle on an old vinyl record deck, about an mote in the public sector they can latch onto whilst deliberately ignoring point blank the far larger beam in the private sector.
Just like the three monkeys. Hard of hearing; hard of seeing; hard of speaking.
Pathetic. Truly pathetic.
“There’s simply nothing left to cut apart from core services. He was however, lamenting (and angry) at the fact that so many service directors and local authority chief executives continue to keep their mouths shut about the dire situation, instead passing cuts off as “transformation”, and other nonsensical terms from the handbook of management speak, and thus covering up the truly appalling state that many/most public services are now in thanks to this government and the last”
The senior directors and executives are keeping their mouths shut because they are still very happy with their own pay packages and pension arrangements. I think your anger might be directed in the wrong direction?
The outright nastiness (polite term) of this is just vile
Excuse me? It’s vile to point out that the execs in these organisations are extremely well looked after so might not want to rock the boat?
I’d say it’s pointing out the downright obvious.
So the state needs to recruit against the crass rewards paid by the private sector?
And that permits you to abuse?
I think your time here is over
Expect the spam button
That may be an explanation that applies in some case, Jim. But if you think such behaviour is limited to senior management in the public sector you really ought to get out more, instead of spouting this one-sided clap trap here.
Jim of course is spot on. One only has to look at the Rotten Boroughs page of Private Eye to see the merry-go-round of council chief execs going from one council to the next with massive payoffs and pension top-ups. If Jim is incorrect in saying that top execs don’t speak out of self-interest, perhaps you could proffer another explanation for them not speaking out.
Of course there are some rotten examples
So?
You think that means all are?
There are many rotten companies – the system encourages it – but not all are
Tim.
As a reader of Private Eye for over 30 years and an occasional contributor to Rotten Boroughs many years ago (when I worked in local government) of course I’m aware of the small pool of CEs and other senior officers who seem to have the ability to circulate around local authorities regardless of how good or bad a job they do, and get paid well for doing it.
And as I acknowledged in my reply to Jim, there are always managers – indeed any grade of worker whether in the public or private sector – who put self interest before all else. If I had a £ for every assignment I’ve read since 1998 (when I started solely teaching postgrad courses to mainly people in work) in which my students document senior management acting in their own self interest rather than that of an organisation as a whole I’d be a pretty wealthy man.
But I would add this, again from observation and direct experience. There’s one dimension of working for a local authority in a senior position that can and does routinely impact on officers speaking out and that’s Politics. Local authorities are after all also local governments and as such its supposed to be the case that elected councillors decide the policy of the LA and therefore it’s their role to speak on policy matters such as cuts to services, unless they instruct officers to do so on their behalf, of course.
Right wing organisations, think tanks, and political parties, deliberately distort public discourse with selective and mischievous reports such as this. They provide convenient left-bashing soundbites for the armies of professional trolls and hangers on who populate the comment sections of the Guardian, and even this well policed site.
These deceptions are deliberate, targetted and co-ordinated. We should expect to hear more of the same, maybe even above the line in the increasingly discredited Guardian.
Thank you Richard for calling them out.
If you read the Below the Line Stuff it’s awfully depressing to realise that so many people have swallowed the myths – I think I need to stop reading BTL stuff to preserve my mental health! The Tories have the poor populace where they want them:
Stressed-supine-soporific.
most of the more right leaning think tanks don’t reveal their funding. I believe the BBC should not quote any think tank which does not reveal its pay masters.
Robin Hutton says:
“Why do assume that all public sector workers in London should be able to afford to buy a property in London? Is renting not good enough for them? Sounds like you are a snob.”
Owning a property gives people a stake in society, something which M Thatcher was keen to promote. Why has this agenda suddenly changed?
Perhaps the Taxpayer’s Alliance could complete their high quality research by publishing the Town Hall Poor List who – quite remakably I’m sure they will agree – are considerably more numerous than the Town Hall rich.
“The Taxpayers’ Alliance needs to think again”
One thing you can be sure of from this mindless rightwing organisation is that it will not “think”. Let alone “again”.
A good look at the taxavoidersalliance books will do nicely….as if there is any chance of that this side of the grave.
A look at the part-time work, and promised “consultancies” of those military masterminds criticising J Corbyn will do nicely as well, thankyou.
Digging deeper using the TPA data we can find that there were 3097 staff made this rich list in 2010/11 ( which was the 2nd worst year since the end of WW2 for government overspending ) and that 3463 staff made this rich list in 2013/14. We should hold other sectors of society to account if they are beneficiaries from public subsidies ( bankers who benefit indirectly from the 100k Euro depositor guarantee fore example ) but I haven’t experienced a 12% increase in the services or wisdom from councils, so it’s fair for the TPA to highlight this imv, it’s what they do.
Yes, I’m on the TPA side tonight as I parked my e-bike today in a council operated bike hutch where the coded door handle broke off so I couldn’t access it after 5pm, meaning a bus home, and return tomorrow as was unable to even get into the reinforced plastic velo-prison thing. Cycling is a low tax minimalist activity which doesn’t need secure parking, just a railing under a rain hood, but it’s just an example of council over-specifying something without regard to their simplest customer requirements.
Sorry: this is evidence of bitching, not analysis
Additionally, most of the 3,500 will only earn a touch over £100,000 while a much greater proportion of the 788,000 will earn significantly more
This is not only a problem in local government but also in central government. The vast majority of the work in Whitehall based departments is done by staff under grade 7 in the civil service structure. This translates to annual pay lower than 40,000 pounds with most of the staff around the 30,000 pounds range. This really isn’t enough to live on in London if you are looking to live independently and have a family. What does this actually mean for organisations managing billions or tens of billions of pounds of public expenditure or aiding vital public policy decisions? Good staff are easily poached, staff turnover is high as most can’t afford to work there and also move on in life (house, family, enjoy life etc) so the workforce is very young and inexperienced.
Ken Clarke once likened the Treasury to an Oxbridge college. He was reflecting on the department being full of the brightest and best. Equally the makeup of the Treasury workforce looks very similar to an Oxbridge college. You have a few well paid older top civil servants (70-100k is great pay but as Richard has already noted it doesn’t mean luxury in London) leading a department of very academically gifted but very young and very inexperienced civil servants. From personal experience the typical Treasury employee can be characterised as; single, childless, younger than 30, living in a rented houseshare with zero prospects of buying anywhere without outside help, keeping semi-regular track to make sure they have enough funds to last the month (not on the breadline but certainly not saving for a house deposit) and crucially thinking about when they will leave to greener pastures No different from most in the private sector some might say. But these are not packages that ensure an experienced and committed workforce in the long-term, rough estimate would be annual staff turnover is high, around 15-20%.
I recognise all that
And yes £70k – £100k is good pay, but does not buy more than a flat now
Some seem to resent even that