Tuesday, 1 June 2010

Can Pay, Should Pay!

So, our new Redbridge Administration has started life by making savings, not by cutting services although that may yet come, but by cutting the costs of administration. They have reduced the number of cabinet positions from 10 to 9 and the number of scrutiny committees from 8 to 5.

Unfortunately, this good start has to some extent been undone by the opposition party who fielded an ineligible candidate at the elections in May, so we are now faced with an unnecessary by election on July 8th costing the council, and us taxpayers, about £12,000, and I suspect the opposition a seat in the council chamber.

Frankly, the Ilford South Labour Party should be footing the bill. It is entirely down to their inadequate selection procedures that these additional costs are to be incurred. It is called taking responsibility for one’s actions and making due reparations. They are very fond of making us pay if we outstay our welcome in a car park and the scope for that has somewhat increased today.

There is a petition to this effect here, but if you sign it please bear in mind that you will be giving your email address to unknown parties, so you may wish to use a disposable one. You can set one of these up for free at Yahoo, Hotmail, Google Mail and probably a few more places.

There is also a Poll over in the right hand side bar.

Bearing in mind that petitions and polls are open to abuse you may also wish to express your opinion directly to the leader of the opposition, contact details here.

12 comments:

  1. Unfortunately the law is clear. Whatever the reason for the by-election, the local authority has to meet the organisational and administrative costs.

    I have read on another blog that a Lib Dem councillor elected to Preston council on 6 May has already resigned, giving as his reason "to spend more time with his girl-friend". Again, the local authority (ie the poor old council taxpayers) will be left footing the bill for the costs of the by-election. Absolutely outrageous.

    At another time, in another place, there could be a debate about how the legal provisions might be changed so that those responsible for a cock-up (THAT wouldn't be allowed on Redbridge-i V.2!) would have to meet the costs of their own incompetence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The provisions of the Law does not preclude anyone from owning up, accepting and acting upon their responsibilities. That is what is called Civil Society.

    They have another choice. They could offer to withdraw from the by election on the understanding that all other parties will do likewise, except for the candidate who was in fourth place.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh dear! It now seems that a newly elected Labour councillor in Barking and Dagenham has resigned for exactly the same reasons. Comment here.

    Apparently there are also by elections in Lambeth and West Central London but I don't know the details for these yet.

    It couldn't possibly, could it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I could blather on about: "why should WE end up paying the bill?" and "shameful waste of public money", but, for the Labour Party today, since when has wasteful public spending and keeping an eye on the purse-strings been part of their remit?

    ReplyDelete
  5. If the newly elected councillor in Barking and Dagenham is disqualified for the sole reason of being employed as a lollipop person, should sense not prevail and either the new councillor gives up council-paid lollipopping or does it for free?
    May I ask, which job pays best?
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  6. Being a councillor probably pays better than the other job!

    However, that's not the point. Her employment made her ineligible AT THE DATE OF NOMINATION. It is a cock-up (second time I've used that word that's unacceptable to Red-i!!) by the political party sponsoring her - and the same one that sponsored the ineligible candidate in Chadwell Ward.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cllr Saund, Deputy leader of the lcoal Labour party is quoted in the Ilford Recorder as saying:

    "The council's legal advisor has told us that even if we donate monies towards the by-election, the council cannot accept lest it is seen as buying influence."

    What a pathetic excuse!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Then, perhaps, as a gesture of contrition, the sum they had in mind could be donated to the Mayor's Charities. Not even necessary to tell us which charity, although a glimpse of the amount of repentance money would seem appropriate.
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  9. Or they could just refuse to draw their allowances! pro rata.

    Some chance!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Another point! The council should not admit so readily to being worried of potentially being accused of being influenced by such a paltry sum as £12,000. Paltry, in council terms, that is.
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete