Low-paid workers at Hertfordshire County Council fail to get pay rise as politicians reject Living Wage plans

The lowest paid workers at Hertfordshire County Council will not be getting a pay rise after ruling politicians rejected plans to implement the Living Wage.

The Conservative administration said it felt the proposal was "not appropriate" at the current time as it would mean an increase in the price of school meals.

However the rejection was heavily criticised by opposition councillors who said they were "bitterly disappointed" the council had rejected giving a "vital increase" to workers on annual salaries as low as £12,000.

Speaking after the vote by the council’s Conservative-dominated Employment Committee, Derrick Ashley, the portfolio holder for Resources & Transformation, said: "We have to take a balanced view as to what is best for the taxpayer as well as what is best for employees. And also for parents as it would have meant an increase of an extra seven to 10p increase on school meals, so this was not an easy decision.

"We did not want to impose an increase on school meals. We considered this carefully and decided that at present it was not appropriate."

The committee’s vote followed a recommendation from officials not to introduce the Living Wage, which they said would add an extra £166,000 a year to the council’s wage bill.

The Living Wage is a non-statutory hourly rate calculated on what workers need to earn to cover the basic cost of living in the UK.

The wage is currently set at £8.80 in London, £7.65 elsewhere in the UK compared to the minimum wage, which is £6.31.

A report to the committee said 4,412 council employees were paid below the Living Wage, 84 per cent of which work in the county’s schools.

As the council is part of a national pay bargaining framework with locally agreed pay bands its lowest paid workers receive £6.45 an hour.

Introducing the Living Wage would mean the lowest annual salary at the council would rise from £12,435 to £14,756.

However, as well as the additional costs, officers said introducing the living wage would also disrupt the council’s pay scale as it would mean low paid workers would start earning the same salary as direct superiors.

The report concluded: "Paying the Living Wage could be seen to be supporting the local community and economic development and also supporting the organisation’s ambition to be an employer of choice.

"However, one set rate for just London and one for the rest of the country does not take into account regional variations; a better approach may be to create more localised rates based on local markets, on a fair pay policy, and taking into account the whole pay package, not just base pay."

Following the decision Nigel Bell, a Labour councillor for Vicarage and Holywell who sat on the Employment committee, said: "I was disappointed that the Conservative majority rejected adopting the ‘Living Wage’ as county council policy. District councils have done it and other county councils.

"As we are on the edge of London it makes sense to sensibly introduce this to help our lowest paid workers to cope with the extra cost of living in this area."

Stephen Giles Medhurst, leader of Liberal Democrat group added: "It is important that the lowest paid in society should receive a living wage.

"With annual salaries of just over £12,000 this is a small but vital increase and I am bitterly disappointed that the so-called ‘county of opportunity’ does not want to lead by example with its own employees like Lib Dem run Three Rivers Council does."

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:21am Fri 6 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

The living wage is a good idea.

The trouble is, how is Nigel and Giles going to pay for it? Does they or their parties have a clue about how much such a thing will cost and how they will meet those costs?

Labour has a track record on finance. It doesn't have a clue.
LibDems are much the same.
At least the Tories seem to care about keeping costs under control.

Judging by the comments from the Tories I doubt they have worked out the costs either, but have just tried to put people off by doing the emotional "it will put up the price of school meals". There is no reason I can see why this increase would need to be met from school meal charges, that is just emotional blackmail by the Tories.

This would potentially cost an absolute fortune to implement, mainly due to the hidden costs of doing so. No-one in this story comes out well, they all look rather incompetent and/or disingenuous.
The living wage is a good idea. The trouble is, how is Nigel and Giles going to pay for it? Does they or their parties have a clue about how much such a thing will cost and how they will meet those costs? Labour has a track record on finance. It doesn't have a clue. LibDems are much the same. At least the Tories seem to care about keeping costs under control. Judging by the comments from the Tories I doubt they have worked out the costs either, but have just tried to put people off by doing the emotional "it will put up the price of school meals". There is no reason I can see why this increase would need to be met from school meal charges, that is just emotional blackmail by the Tories. This would potentially cost an absolute fortune to implement, mainly due to the hidden costs of doing so. No-one in this story comes out well, they all look rather incompetent and/or disingenuous. Phil Cox (UKIP)

12:28pm Fri 6 Dec 13

TRT says...

I bet when the vote comes to putting up their own wages, they'll find a different set of arguments...
I bet when the vote comes to putting up their own wages, they'll find a different set of arguments... TRT

4:55pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Sara says...

Lib Dem run Three Rivers adopted the Living Wage earlier this year. It bankrupts no-one and helps treat staff with dignity. Once again @TRT, we won't be increasing our allowances.

BTW @Phil, this deliberately getting Stephen Giles-Medhurst's name wrong is rather childish, just as those who use silly names for Watford's Mayor, or who used to talk about Tony Bliar. Says more about those who do it.
Lib Dem run Three Rivers adopted the Living Wage earlier this year. It bankrupts no-one and helps treat staff with dignity. Once again @TRT, we won't be increasing our allowances. BTW @Phil, this deliberately getting Stephen Giles-Medhurst's name wrong is rather childish, just as those who use silly names for Watford's Mayor, or who used to talk about Tony Bliar. Says more about those who do it. Sara

7:43pm Fri 6 Dec 13

watfordrick says...

Personally I'm all for the oppressed but some public sector workers are some of the laziest useless wastes of spaces in employment. I'm not talking about those hard working dustbin men (or women) or dinner ladies (or dinner men) but the council office employees. I mean honestly they would not be employed in the private sector - well not in an office - unless it was in the postroom - (maybe not even that)! Yet we pay for them, good salaries for what they do but they are often rude and incompetent and they want more money. Get rid - send them to Amazon as packers!!!!
Personally I'm all for the oppressed but some public sector workers are some of the laziest useless wastes of spaces in employment. I'm not talking about those hard working dustbin men (or women) or dinner ladies (or dinner men) but the council office employees. I mean honestly they would not be employed in the private sector - well not in an office - unless it was in the postroom - (maybe not even that)! Yet we pay for them, good salaries for what they do but they are often rude and incompetent and they want more money. Get rid - send them to Amazon as packers!!!! watfordrick

8:11pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Sara says...

@watfordrick Please tell me which lazy, rude or incompetent staff you have come across at Three Rivers or Herts CC and I will investigate.
@watfordrick Please tell me which lazy, rude or incompetent staff you have come across at Three Rivers or Herts CC and I will investigate. Sara

10:22pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Cuetip says...

TRT wrote:
I bet when the vote comes to putting up their own wages, they'll find a different set of arguments...
It seems it's always the people who have more get rewarded and those who have little will have even less.

Those at the 'top' also seem to think they have the right to talk about living within your means.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: I bet when the vote comes to putting up their own wages, they'll find a different set of arguments...[/p][/quote]It seems it's always the people who have more get rewarded and those who have little will have even less. Those at the 'top' also seem to think they have the right to talk about living within your means. Cuetip

7:01am Sun 8 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Sara wrote:
Lib Dem run Three Rivers adopted the Living Wage earlier this year. It bankrupts no-one and helps treat staff with dignity. Once again @TRT, we won't be increasing our allowances.

BTW @Phil, this deliberately getting Stephen Giles-Medhurst's name wrong is rather childish, just as those who use silly names for Watford's Mayor, or who used to talk about Tony Bliar. Says more about those who do it.
The contempt in which elected politicians like Sara hold the electorate and the ease of which they are generous with other peoples money never ceases to amaze me.

The charge that they do not live in the real world is not an unreasonable one to make although I am sure that in their real lives they are not so generous with their own money as they are with ours.

Sara and her LibDem colleagues at Three Rivers have introduced the living wage and she casually justifies it with the comment "It bankrupts no-one".

Let's examine what Sara said - "It bankrupts no-one".

Well, if that is their criteria at three Rivers and in the LibDem party as a whole, which is probably true judging by their actions, god help us mere taxpayers because they won't stop until we are all bankrupted!

"It bankrupts no-one" - That really is a trite argument, Sara. By the way, no-one died. It is not relevant either, but I thought I would throw it in so Sara can use it in future when she is defending or justifying some expensive scheme or council project disaster like William Penn.

My question is, does it have to cause bankruptcies before Sara will actually consider the costs of her actions in being generous with OUR tax-monies? Sara, for goodness sake,wake up, start being responsible with our taxes! It's really not your money, it's ours. You work for us, remember? The whole council does.

Well of course it doesn't bankrupt anyone Sara, because no-one in council pays for it.

You councillors do not contribute a single extra penny to what you spend in council so you will definitely not be bankrupted by your high spending in council. Instead it is us, the taxpayers who you hold in such contempt who pay for your kind and generous actions with our taxes.

Now, down to the nitty gritty.

So Sara, how much has it cost so far? How much will it cost per year when it is fully implemented?

More importantly, how much is it predicted to cost in the future once council pay scales and pensions are adjusted upwards to reflect the living wage at the bottom of the pay scales, or haven't you worked that out yet? Will it equate to a pay rise, through knock-on effect, for everyone in council?

Maybe it's better for you not to work it out. After all, the electorate might be shocked at the cost implications of your actions.

OK, so now you have committed to this scheme, how will you pay for this Sara?

Borrow the money? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure)

Raid reserves? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure)

Or will you just put up our council taxes like usual to pay for your schemes "without bankrupting anyone". This seems the more likely option.

So Sara and the LibDems are for higher taxes for everyone who pays council tax. That is so LibDem. Remember that when you get to the polls next year.


Did the William Penn fiasco bankrupt anyone Sara? (N.B.. As far as I know, no-one died either).

You and your council "did not bankrupt anyone" with William Penn renovations, yet you presided over a complete fiasco that cost the council (how many millions was it?). And didn't the council try to cover it all up?

Many people will find that idea quite disgusting, of a council covering up such hugely expensive incompetence, and particularly on such a grand scale.

Well Sara, you are obviously a very kind and generous person, particularly when it comes to other peoples money. In fact, so generous are you that you have foregone a rise in councillors pay.

Sara, you keep pressing the point in comment after comment that you are not increasing your councillor allowances as though that is some sort of noble gesture. To some that may be how it looks.

I suspect these allowances are generous enough. I can't remember if it was Watford or Three Rivers that was recently judged to be paying councillors more than the going rate, maybe it was both.

If you got paid by results though I suspect the councillors in charge at three Rivers, and that includes you Sara, would be working for nothing while waiting for the electorate to kick you out at the next election.

No pay rise? It's only because you do not deserve one! A ****-up like William Penn in private industry would have seen heads roll, but then, that is the real world and this is council.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: Lib Dem run Three Rivers adopted the Living Wage earlier this year. It bankrupts no-one and helps treat staff with dignity. Once again @TRT, we won't be increasing our allowances. BTW @Phil, this deliberately getting Stephen Giles-Medhurst's name wrong is rather childish, just as those who use silly names for Watford's Mayor, or who used to talk about Tony Bliar. Says more about those who do it.[/p][/quote]The contempt in which elected politicians like Sara hold the electorate and the ease of which they are generous with other peoples money never ceases to amaze me. The charge that they do not live in the real world is not an unreasonable one to make although I am sure that in their real lives they are not so generous with their own money as they are with ours. Sara and her LibDem colleagues at Three Rivers have introduced the living wage and she casually justifies it with the comment "It bankrupts no-one". Let's examine what Sara said - "It bankrupts no-one". Well, if that is their criteria at three Rivers and in the LibDem party as a whole, which is probably true judging by their actions, god help us mere taxpayers because they won't stop until we are all bankrupted! "It bankrupts no-one" - That really is a trite argument, Sara. By the way, no-one died. It is not relevant either, but I thought I would throw it in so Sara can use it in future when she is defending or justifying some expensive scheme or council project disaster like William Penn. My question is, does it have to cause bankruptcies before Sara will actually consider the costs of her actions in being generous with OUR tax-monies? Sara, for goodness sake,wake up, start being responsible with our taxes! It's really not your money, it's ours. You work for us, remember? The whole council does. Well of course it doesn't bankrupt anyone Sara, because no-one in council pays for it. You councillors do not contribute a single extra penny to what you spend in council so you will definitely not be bankrupted by your high spending in council. Instead it is us, the taxpayers who you hold in such contempt who pay for your kind and generous actions with our taxes. Now, down to the nitty gritty. So Sara, how much has it cost so far? How much will it cost per year when it is fully implemented? More importantly, how much is it predicted to cost in the future once council pay scales and pensions are adjusted upwards to reflect the living wage at the bottom of the pay scales, or haven't you worked that out yet? Will it equate to a pay rise, through knock-on effect, for everyone in council? Maybe it's better for you not to work it out. After all, the electorate might be shocked at the cost implications of your actions. OK, so now you have committed to this scheme, how will you pay for this Sara? Borrow the money? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Raid reserves? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Or will you just put up our council taxes like usual to pay for your schemes "without bankrupting anyone". This seems the more likely option. So Sara and the LibDems are for higher taxes for everyone who pays council tax. That is so LibDem. Remember that when you get to the polls next year. Did the William Penn fiasco bankrupt anyone Sara? (N.B.. As far as I know, no-one died either). You and your council "did not bankrupt anyone" with William Penn renovations, yet you presided over a complete fiasco that cost the council (how many millions was it?). And didn't the council try to cover it all up? Many people will find that idea quite disgusting, of a council covering up such hugely expensive incompetence, and particularly on such a grand scale. Well Sara, you are obviously a very kind and generous person, particularly when it comes to other peoples money. In fact, so generous are you that you have foregone a rise in councillors pay. Sara, you keep pressing the point in comment after comment that you are not increasing your councillor allowances as though that is some sort of noble gesture. To some that may be how it looks. I suspect these allowances are generous enough. I can't remember if it was Watford or Three Rivers that was recently judged to be paying councillors more than the going rate, maybe it was both. If you got paid by results though I suspect the councillors in charge at three Rivers, and that includes you Sara, would be working for nothing while waiting for the electorate to kick you out at the next election. No pay rise? It's only because you do not deserve one! A ****-up like William Penn in private industry would have seen heads roll, but then, that is the real world and this is council. Phil Cox (UKIP)

11:28am Mon 9 Dec 13

garston tony says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Sara wrote: Lib Dem run Three Rivers adopted the Living Wage earlier this year. It bankrupts no-one and helps treat staff with dignity. Once again @TRT, we won't be increasing our allowances. BTW @Phil, this deliberately getting Stephen Giles-Medhurst's name wrong is rather childish, just as those who use silly names for Watford's Mayor, or who used to talk about Tony Bliar. Says more about those who do it.
The contempt in which elected politicians like Sara hold the electorate and the ease of which they are generous with other peoples money never ceases to amaze me. The charge that they do not live in the real world is not an unreasonable one to make although I am sure that in their real lives they are not so generous with their own money as they are with ours. Sara and her LibDem colleagues at Three Rivers have introduced the living wage and she casually justifies it with the comment "It bankrupts no-one". Let's examine what Sara said - "It bankrupts no-one". Well, if that is their criteria at three Rivers and in the LibDem party as a whole, which is probably true judging by their actions, god help us mere taxpayers because they won't stop until we are all bankrupted! "It bankrupts no-one" - That really is a trite argument, Sara. By the way, no-one died. It is not relevant either, but I thought I would throw it in so Sara can use it in future when she is defending or justifying some expensive scheme or council project disaster like William Penn. My question is, does it have to cause bankruptcies before Sara will actually consider the costs of her actions in being generous with OUR tax-monies? Sara, for goodness sake,wake up, start being responsible with our taxes! It's really not your money, it's ours. You work for us, remember? The whole council does. Well of course it doesn't bankrupt anyone Sara, because no-one in council pays for it. You councillors do not contribute a single extra penny to what you spend in council so you will definitely not be bankrupted by your high spending in council. Instead it is us, the taxpayers who you hold in such contempt who pay for your kind and generous actions with our taxes. Now, down to the nitty gritty. So Sara, how much has it cost so far? How much will it cost per year when it is fully implemented? More importantly, how much is it predicted to cost in the future once council pay scales and pensions are adjusted upwards to reflect the living wage at the bottom of the pay scales, or haven't you worked that out yet? Will it equate to a pay rise, through knock-on effect, for everyone in council? Maybe it's better for you not to work it out. After all, the electorate might be shocked at the cost implications of your actions. OK, so now you have committed to this scheme, how will you pay for this Sara? Borrow the money? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Raid reserves? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Or will you just put up our council taxes like usual to pay for your schemes "without bankrupting anyone". This seems the more likely option. So Sara and the LibDems are for higher taxes for everyone who pays council tax. That is so LibDem. Remember that when you get to the polls next year. Did the William Penn fiasco bankrupt anyone Sara? (N.B.. As far as I know, no-one died either). You and your council "did not bankrupt anyone" with William Penn renovations, yet you presided over a complete fiasco that cost the council (how many millions was it?). And didn't the council try to cover it all up? Many people will find that idea quite disgusting, of a council covering up such hugely expensive incompetence, and particularly on such a grand scale. Well Sara, you are obviously a very kind and generous person, particularly when it comes to other peoples money. In fact, so generous are you that you have foregone a rise in councillors pay. Sara, you keep pressing the point in comment after comment that you are not increasing your councillor allowances as though that is some sort of noble gesture. To some that may be how it looks. I suspect these allowances are generous enough. I can't remember if it was Watford or Three Rivers that was recently judged to be paying councillors more than the going rate, maybe it was both. If you got paid by results though I suspect the councillors in charge at three Rivers, and that includes you Sara, would be working for nothing while waiting for the electorate to kick you out at the next election. No pay rise? It's only because you do not deserve one! A ****-up like William Penn in private industry would have seen heads roll, but then, that is the real world and this is council.
There you go folks, UKIP are AGAINST paying people a living wage ie paying enough so that people can actually afford the basics in life (although a living wage is still far from allowing a comfortable life) such as food and heating.

Wasnt it Nigel Farrage that boasted of £2mill of expenses claims not so long ago? And remind us please Mr Cox, that MEP that was jailed for fraud a couple of months ago which party was he from?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: Lib Dem run Three Rivers adopted the Living Wage earlier this year. It bankrupts no-one and helps treat staff with dignity. Once again @TRT, we won't be increasing our allowances. BTW @Phil, this deliberately getting Stephen Giles-Medhurst's name wrong is rather childish, just as those who use silly names for Watford's Mayor, or who used to talk about Tony Bliar. Says more about those who do it.[/p][/quote]The contempt in which elected politicians like Sara hold the electorate and the ease of which they are generous with other peoples money never ceases to amaze me. The charge that they do not live in the real world is not an unreasonable one to make although I am sure that in their real lives they are not so generous with their own money as they are with ours. Sara and her LibDem colleagues at Three Rivers have introduced the living wage and she casually justifies it with the comment "It bankrupts no-one". Let's examine what Sara said - "It bankrupts no-one". Well, if that is their criteria at three Rivers and in the LibDem party as a whole, which is probably true judging by their actions, god help us mere taxpayers because they won't stop until we are all bankrupted! "It bankrupts no-one" - That really is a trite argument, Sara. By the way, no-one died. It is not relevant either, but I thought I would throw it in so Sara can use it in future when she is defending or justifying some expensive scheme or council project disaster like William Penn. My question is, does it have to cause bankruptcies before Sara will actually consider the costs of her actions in being generous with OUR tax-monies? Sara, for goodness sake,wake up, start being responsible with our taxes! It's really not your money, it's ours. You work for us, remember? The whole council does. Well of course it doesn't bankrupt anyone Sara, because no-one in council pays for it. You councillors do not contribute a single extra penny to what you spend in council so you will definitely not be bankrupted by your high spending in council. Instead it is us, the taxpayers who you hold in such contempt who pay for your kind and generous actions with our taxes. Now, down to the nitty gritty. So Sara, how much has it cost so far? How much will it cost per year when it is fully implemented? More importantly, how much is it predicted to cost in the future once council pay scales and pensions are adjusted upwards to reflect the living wage at the bottom of the pay scales, or haven't you worked that out yet? Will it equate to a pay rise, through knock-on effect, for everyone in council? Maybe it's better for you not to work it out. After all, the electorate might be shocked at the cost implications of your actions. OK, so now you have committed to this scheme, how will you pay for this Sara? Borrow the money? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Raid reserves? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Or will you just put up our council taxes like usual to pay for your schemes "without bankrupting anyone". This seems the more likely option. So Sara and the LibDems are for higher taxes for everyone who pays council tax. That is so LibDem. Remember that when you get to the polls next year. Did the William Penn fiasco bankrupt anyone Sara? (N.B.. As far as I know, no-one died either). You and your council "did not bankrupt anyone" with William Penn renovations, yet you presided over a complete fiasco that cost the council (how many millions was it?). And didn't the council try to cover it all up? Many people will find that idea quite disgusting, of a council covering up such hugely expensive incompetence, and particularly on such a grand scale. Well Sara, you are obviously a very kind and generous person, particularly when it comes to other peoples money. In fact, so generous are you that you have foregone a rise in councillors pay. Sara, you keep pressing the point in comment after comment that you are not increasing your councillor allowances as though that is some sort of noble gesture. To some that may be how it looks. I suspect these allowances are generous enough. I can't remember if it was Watford or Three Rivers that was recently judged to be paying councillors more than the going rate, maybe it was both. If you got paid by results though I suspect the councillors in charge at three Rivers, and that includes you Sara, would be working for nothing while waiting for the electorate to kick you out at the next election. No pay rise? It's only because you do not deserve one! A ****-up like William Penn in private industry would have seen heads roll, but then, that is the real world and this is council.[/p][/quote]There you go folks, UKIP are AGAINST paying people a living wage ie paying enough so that people can actually afford the basics in life (although a living wage is still far from allowing a comfortable life) such as food and heating. Wasnt it Nigel Farrage that boasted of £2mill of expenses claims not so long ago? And remind us please Mr Cox, that MEP that was jailed for fraud a couple of months ago which party was he from? garston tony

11:32am Mon 9 Dec 13

garston tony says...

watfordrick wrote:
Personally I'm all for the oppressed but some public sector workers are some of the laziest useless wastes of spaces in employment. I'm not talking about those hard working dustbin men (or women) or dinner ladies (or dinner men) but the council office employees. I mean honestly they would not be employed in the private sector - well not in an office - unless it was in the postroom - (maybe not even that)! Yet we pay for them, good salaries for what they do but they are often rude and incompetent and they want more money. Get rid - send them to Amazon as packers!!!!
Having had plenty of dealings with various local authorities and departments over the years my experiences dont match your opinion. On the whole i've found local authority staff to be professional, helpful and knowlegeable. Yes there have been moments but no more, and indeed probably less than i've had dealing in the private sector.
[quote][p][bold]watfordrick[/bold] wrote: Personally I'm all for the oppressed but some public sector workers are some of the laziest useless wastes of spaces in employment. I'm not talking about those hard working dustbin men (or women) or dinner ladies (or dinner men) but the council office employees. I mean honestly they would not be employed in the private sector - well not in an office - unless it was in the postroom - (maybe not even that)! Yet we pay for them, good salaries for what they do but they are often rude and incompetent and they want more money. Get rid - send them to Amazon as packers!!!![/p][/quote]Having had plenty of dealings with various local authorities and departments over the years my experiences dont match your opinion. On the whole i've found local authority staff to be professional, helpful and knowlegeable. Yes there have been moments but no more, and indeed probably less than i've had dealing in the private sector. garston tony

12:03pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Sara wrote: Lib Dem run Three Rivers adopted the Living Wage earlier this year. It bankrupts no-one and helps treat staff with dignity. Once again @TRT, we won't be increasing our allowances. BTW @Phil, this deliberately getting Stephen Giles-Medhurst's name wrong is rather childish, just as those who use silly names for Watford's Mayor, or who used to talk about Tony Bliar. Says more about those who do it.
The contempt in which elected politicians like Sara hold the electorate and the ease of which they are generous with other peoples money never ceases to amaze me. The charge that they do not live in the real world is not an unreasonable one to make although I am sure that in their real lives they are not so generous with their own money as they are with ours. Sara and her LibDem colleagues at Three Rivers have introduced the living wage and she casually justifies it with the comment "It bankrupts no-one". Let's examine what Sara said - "It bankrupts no-one". Well, if that is their criteria at three Rivers and in the LibDem party as a whole, which is probably true judging by their actions, god help us mere taxpayers because they won't stop until we are all bankrupted! "It bankrupts no-one" - That really is a trite argument, Sara. By the way, no-one died. It is not relevant either, but I thought I would throw it in so Sara can use it in future when she is defending or justifying some expensive scheme or council project disaster like William Penn. My question is, does it have to cause bankruptcies before Sara will actually consider the costs of her actions in being generous with OUR tax-monies? Sara, for goodness sake,wake up, start being responsible with our taxes! It's really not your money, it's ours. You work for us, remember? The whole council does. Well of course it doesn't bankrupt anyone Sara, because no-one in council pays for it. You councillors do not contribute a single extra penny to what you spend in council so you will definitely not be bankrupted by your high spending in council. Instead it is us, the taxpayers who you hold in such contempt who pay for your kind and generous actions with our taxes. Now, down to the nitty gritty. So Sara, how much has it cost so far? How much will it cost per year when it is fully implemented? More importantly, how much is it predicted to cost in the future once council pay scales and pensions are adjusted upwards to reflect the living wage at the bottom of the pay scales, or haven't you worked that out yet? Will it equate to a pay rise, through knock-on effect, for everyone in council? Maybe it's better for you not to work it out. After all, the electorate might be shocked at the cost implications of your actions. OK, so now you have committed to this scheme, how will you pay for this Sara? Borrow the money? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Raid reserves? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Or will you just put up our council taxes like usual to pay for your schemes "without bankrupting anyone". This seems the more likely option. So Sara and the LibDems are for higher taxes for everyone who pays council tax. That is so LibDem. Remember that when you get to the polls next year. Did the William Penn fiasco bankrupt anyone Sara? (N.B.. As far as I know, no-one died either). You and your council "did not bankrupt anyone" with William Penn renovations, yet you presided over a complete fiasco that cost the council (how many millions was it?). And didn't the council try to cover it all up? Many people will find that idea quite disgusting, of a council covering up such hugely expensive incompetence, and particularly on such a grand scale. Well Sara, you are obviously a very kind and generous person, particularly when it comes to other peoples money. In fact, so generous are you that you have foregone a rise in councillors pay. Sara, you keep pressing the point in comment after comment that you are not increasing your councillor allowances as though that is some sort of noble gesture. To some that may be how it looks. I suspect these allowances are generous enough. I can't remember if it was Watford or Three Rivers that was recently judged to be paying councillors more than the going rate, maybe it was both. If you got paid by results though I suspect the councillors in charge at three Rivers, and that includes you Sara, would be working for nothing while waiting for the electorate to kick you out at the next election. No pay rise? It's only because you do not deserve one! A ****-up like William Penn in private industry would have seen heads roll, but then, that is the real world and this is council.
There you go folks, UKIP are AGAINST paying people a living wage ie paying enough so that people can actually afford the basics in life (although a living wage is still far from allowing a comfortable life) such as food and heating. Wasnt it Nigel Farrage that boasted of £2mill of expenses claims not so long ago? And remind us please Mr Cox, that MEP that was jailed for fraud a couple of months ago which party was he from?
Tony,

follow by all means whatever personal political affiliations to wish to and by all means oppose UKIP if that floats your boat, but please do others the courtesy to read and understand their posts before passing incorrect judgement.

I have previously said that I find the living wage a good thing. It's here somewhere in black and white.

In this post I question the cost of doing so at TRDC and Sara's diabolical attitude to money, sorry, our tax money. (I'm sure she spends her own money far more wisely.)

Who knows Tony, you may live in a cossetted world, like the LibDem councillors, where money is no object because you are spending other peoples money, but in the real world the rest of us have to manage our money and spend it wisely.

No council should embark on a project like paying the living wage without first costing the project and working out how to pay for it. Some people working hard and earning below the living wage might find it unattractive to pay an extra 10% (say) on their council tax so that civil servants get the living wage. What would you say to them?

Some people might prefer to heat their homes or put food on the table given the choice between that and paying a much higher council tax.

Money doesn't grow on trees, it's something that councillors and some posters to these pages would do well to remember.

Finally the point I am making is that principles are great, but in the case of things such as this they must also be affordable to the people who pay the bills, the taxpayer, and provide value for money. A responsible council would know that already. Others are just living in cloud cuckoo land, and we are paying the rent!
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: Lib Dem run Three Rivers adopted the Living Wage earlier this year. It bankrupts no-one and helps treat staff with dignity. Once again @TRT, we won't be increasing our allowances. BTW @Phil, this deliberately getting Stephen Giles-Medhurst's name wrong is rather childish, just as those who use silly names for Watford's Mayor, or who used to talk about Tony Bliar. Says more about those who do it.[/p][/quote]The contempt in which elected politicians like Sara hold the electorate and the ease of which they are generous with other peoples money never ceases to amaze me. The charge that they do not live in the real world is not an unreasonable one to make although I am sure that in their real lives they are not so generous with their own money as they are with ours. Sara and her LibDem colleagues at Three Rivers have introduced the living wage and she casually justifies it with the comment "It bankrupts no-one". Let's examine what Sara said - "It bankrupts no-one". Well, if that is their criteria at three Rivers and in the LibDem party as a whole, which is probably true judging by their actions, god help us mere taxpayers because they won't stop until we are all bankrupted! "It bankrupts no-one" - That really is a trite argument, Sara. By the way, no-one died. It is not relevant either, but I thought I would throw it in so Sara can use it in future when she is defending or justifying some expensive scheme or council project disaster like William Penn. My question is, does it have to cause bankruptcies before Sara will actually consider the costs of her actions in being generous with OUR tax-monies? Sara, for goodness sake,wake up, start being responsible with our taxes! It's really not your money, it's ours. You work for us, remember? The whole council does. Well of course it doesn't bankrupt anyone Sara, because no-one in council pays for it. You councillors do not contribute a single extra penny to what you spend in council so you will definitely not be bankrupted by your high spending in council. Instead it is us, the taxpayers who you hold in such contempt who pay for your kind and generous actions with our taxes. Now, down to the nitty gritty. So Sara, how much has it cost so far? How much will it cost per year when it is fully implemented? More importantly, how much is it predicted to cost in the future once council pay scales and pensions are adjusted upwards to reflect the living wage at the bottom of the pay scales, or haven't you worked that out yet? Will it equate to a pay rise, through knock-on effect, for everyone in council? Maybe it's better for you not to work it out. After all, the electorate might be shocked at the cost implications of your actions. OK, so now you have committed to this scheme, how will you pay for this Sara? Borrow the money? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Raid reserves? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Or will you just put up our council taxes like usual to pay for your schemes "without bankrupting anyone". This seems the more likely option. So Sara and the LibDems are for higher taxes for everyone who pays council tax. That is so LibDem. Remember that when you get to the polls next year. Did the William Penn fiasco bankrupt anyone Sara? (N.B.. As far as I know, no-one died either). You and your council "did not bankrupt anyone" with William Penn renovations, yet you presided over a complete fiasco that cost the council (how many millions was it?). And didn't the council try to cover it all up? Many people will find that idea quite disgusting, of a council covering up such hugely expensive incompetence, and particularly on such a grand scale. Well Sara, you are obviously a very kind and generous person, particularly when it comes to other peoples money. In fact, so generous are you that you have foregone a rise in councillors pay. Sara, you keep pressing the point in comment after comment that you are not increasing your councillor allowances as though that is some sort of noble gesture. To some that may be how it looks. I suspect these allowances are generous enough. I can't remember if it was Watford or Three Rivers that was recently judged to be paying councillors more than the going rate, maybe it was both. If you got paid by results though I suspect the councillors in charge at three Rivers, and that includes you Sara, would be working for nothing while waiting for the electorate to kick you out at the next election. No pay rise? It's only because you do not deserve one! A ****-up like William Penn in private industry would have seen heads roll, but then, that is the real world and this is council.[/p][/quote]There you go folks, UKIP are AGAINST paying people a living wage ie paying enough so that people can actually afford the basics in life (although a living wage is still far from allowing a comfortable life) such as food and heating. Wasnt it Nigel Farrage that boasted of £2mill of expenses claims not so long ago? And remind us please Mr Cox, that MEP that was jailed for fraud a couple of months ago which party was he from?[/p][/quote]Tony, follow by all means whatever personal political affiliations to wish to and by all means oppose UKIP if that floats your boat, but please do others the courtesy to read and understand their posts before passing incorrect judgement. I have previously said that I find the living wage a good thing. It's here somewhere in black and white. In this post I question the cost of doing so at TRDC and Sara's diabolical attitude to money, sorry, our tax money. (I'm sure she spends her own money far more wisely.) Who knows Tony, you may live in a cossetted world, like the LibDem councillors, where money is no object because you are spending other peoples money, but in the real world the rest of us have to manage our money and spend it wisely. No council should embark on a project like paying the living wage without first costing the project and working out how to pay for it. Some people working hard and earning below the living wage might find it unattractive to pay an extra 10% (say) on their council tax so that civil servants get the living wage. What would you say to them? Some people might prefer to heat their homes or put food on the table given the choice between that and paying a much higher council tax. Money doesn't grow on trees, it's something that councillors and some posters to these pages would do well to remember. Finally the point I am making is that principles are great, but in the case of things such as this they must also be affordable to the people who pay the bills, the taxpayer, and provide value for money. A responsible council would know that already. Others are just living in cloud cuckoo land, and we are paying the rent! Phil Cox (UKIP)

12:26pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Sara says...

If you'd done your research @phil cox, you would have seen that the cost of introducing the ‘Living Wage’ is £1847.22 per annum. That's the grand sum of two pence per resident per year.

As usual you spew out your prejudices without any attempt to check the facts. Just the same as the rest of your comments.

Fortunately Three Rivers do do the research before putting such ideas forward.
If you'd done your research @phil cox, you would have seen that the cost of introducing the ‘Living Wage’ is £1847.22 per annum. That's the grand sum of two pence per resident per year. As usual you spew out your prejudices without any attempt to check the facts. Just the same as the rest of your comments. Fortunately Three Rivers do do the research before putting such ideas forward. Sara

1:00pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Sara wrote:
If you'd done your research @phil cox, you would have seen that the cost of introducing the ‘Living Wage’ is £1847.22 per annum. That's the grand sum of two pence per resident per year. As usual you spew out your prejudices without any attempt to check the facts. Just the same as the rest of your comments. Fortunately Three Rivers do do the research before putting such ideas forward.
Sara, you really are getting funnier with your posts. Well done!

I asked for the total annual cost of meeting the living wage, to TRDC, including knock-on costs.

Are you saying the total costs of doing so are just £1847.22 per year for the whole council? I would love to believe it is true but I fear the reality is going to be somewhat different.

I based my comments on researching HCC where information is more readily available. The cost implications for HCC are potentially huge.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: If you'd done your research @phil cox, you would have seen that the cost of introducing the ‘Living Wage’ is £1847.22 per annum. That's the grand sum of two pence per resident per year. As usual you spew out your prejudices without any attempt to check the facts. Just the same as the rest of your comments. Fortunately Three Rivers do do the research before putting such ideas forward.[/p][/quote]Sara, you really are getting funnier with your posts. Well done! I asked for the total annual cost of meeting the living wage, to TRDC, including knock-on costs. Are you saying the total costs of doing so are just £1847.22 per year for the whole council? I would love to believe it is true but I fear the reality is going to be somewhat different. I based my comments on researching HCC where information is more readily available. The cost implications for HCC are potentially huge. Phil Cox (UKIP)

1:19pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Sara says...

Yes that's exactly what I meant. It's in a publicly available council agenda on the council's web site. Believe it is true - because it is. Strange that UKIP is amused by the truth.

So is two pence per resident per year too much to treat employees with some dignity?
Yes that's exactly what I meant. It's in a publicly available council agenda on the council's web site. Believe it is true - because it is. Strange that UKIP is amused by the truth. So is two pence per resident per year too much to treat employees with some dignity? Sara

2:46pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Please post a link, I find the TRDC website hard to find things like this on.

I am not amused by the truth, I am however surprised the cost is so small. If that is the case then implementing it was not only a good thing to do but almost a no-cost thing to do.

HCC costs for doing so, clearly with many more lower-paid workers than TRDC, will potentially be huge.

Is all the information about the William Penn fiasco also in the public domain now? If so, please post a link to that as well.
Please post a link, I find the TRDC website hard to find things like this on. I am not amused by the truth, I am however surprised the cost is so small. If that is the case then implementing it was not only a good thing to do but almost a no-cost thing to do. HCC costs for doing so, clearly with many more lower-paid workers than TRDC, will potentially be huge. Is all the information about the William Penn fiasco also in the public domain now? If so, please post a link to that as well. Phil Cox (UKIP)

2:50pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Sara says...

The TRDC web site is very easy to navigate. I am not here to do your party political research.

But it begs the question: why do you comment on issues on which you are uninformed?
The TRDC web site is very easy to navigate. I am not here to do your party political research. But it begs the question: why do you comment on issues on which you are uninformed? Sara

4:16pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

It is indeed easy to navigate, if you are just browsing. It is not easy to find an article or agenda regarding the decision to implement the living wage - I tried earlier today after your suggestion.

I am not surprised at your attitude though, after all in the past the councillors on TRDC, including yourself presumably, sought to hide information from the public on the William Penn fiasco in a blatant attempt to hide the truth and mislead the public.

Why will you not give a link to the article? Something else to hide or do you do you just prefer people not to examine the workings of the LibDem-run council?
It is indeed easy to navigate, if you are just browsing. It is not easy to find an article or agenda regarding the decision to implement the living wage - I tried earlier today after your suggestion. I am not surprised at your attitude though, after all in the past the councillors on TRDC, including yourself presumably, sought to hide information from the public on the William Penn fiasco in a blatant attempt to hide the truth and mislead the public. Why will you not give a link to the article? Something else to hide or do you do you just prefer people not to examine the workings of the LibDem-run council? Phil Cox (UKIP)

4:28pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Sara says...

I haven't got a link as I have copies already of the documents.
I haven't got a link as I have copies already of the documents. Sara

10:37am Wed 11 Dec 13

garston tony says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Sara wrote: Lib Dem run Three Rivers adopted the Living Wage earlier this year. It bankrupts no-one and helps treat staff with dignity. Once again @TRT, we won't be increasing our allowances. BTW @Phil, this deliberately getting Stephen Giles-Medhurst's name wrong is rather childish, just as those who use silly names for Watford's Mayor, or who used to talk about Tony Bliar. Says more about those who do it.
The contempt in which elected politicians like Sara hold the electorate and the ease of which they are generous with other peoples money never ceases to amaze me. The charge that they do not live in the real world is not an unreasonable one to make although I am sure that in their real lives they are not so generous with their own money as they are with ours. Sara and her LibDem colleagues at Three Rivers have introduced the living wage and she casually justifies it with the comment "It bankrupts no-one". Let's examine what Sara said - "It bankrupts no-one". Well, if that is their criteria at three Rivers and in the LibDem party as a whole, which is probably true judging by their actions, god help us mere taxpayers because they won't stop until we are all bankrupted! "It bankrupts no-one" - That really is a trite argument, Sara. By the way, no-one died. It is not relevant either, but I thought I would throw it in so Sara can use it in future when she is defending or justifying some expensive scheme or council project disaster like William Penn. My question is, does it have to cause bankruptcies before Sara will actually consider the costs of her actions in being generous with OUR tax-monies? Sara, for goodness sake,wake up, start being responsible with our taxes! It's really not your money, it's ours. You work for us, remember? The whole council does. Well of course it doesn't bankrupt anyone Sara, because no-one in council pays for it. You councillors do not contribute a single extra penny to what you spend in council so you will definitely not be bankrupted by your high spending in council. Instead it is us, the taxpayers who you hold in such contempt who pay for your kind and generous actions with our taxes. Now, down to the nitty gritty. So Sara, how much has it cost so far? How much will it cost per year when it is fully implemented? More importantly, how much is it predicted to cost in the future once council pay scales and pensions are adjusted upwards to reflect the living wage at the bottom of the pay scales, or haven't you worked that out yet? Will it equate to a pay rise, through knock-on effect, for everyone in council? Maybe it's better for you not to work it out. After all, the electorate might be shocked at the cost implications of your actions. OK, so now you have committed to this scheme, how will you pay for this Sara? Borrow the money? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Raid reserves? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Or will you just put up our council taxes like usual to pay for your schemes "without bankrupting anyone". This seems the more likely option. So Sara and the LibDems are for higher taxes for everyone who pays council tax. That is so LibDem. Remember that when you get to the polls next year. Did the William Penn fiasco bankrupt anyone Sara? (N.B.. As far as I know, no-one died either). You and your council "did not bankrupt anyone" with William Penn renovations, yet you presided over a complete fiasco that cost the council (how many millions was it?). And didn't the council try to cover it all up? Many people will find that idea quite disgusting, of a council covering up such hugely expensive incompetence, and particularly on such a grand scale. Well Sara, you are obviously a very kind and generous person, particularly when it comes to other peoples money. In fact, so generous are you that you have foregone a rise in councillors pay. Sara, you keep pressing the point in comment after comment that you are not increasing your councillor allowances as though that is some sort of noble gesture. To some that may be how it looks. I suspect these allowances are generous enough. I can't remember if it was Watford or Three Rivers that was recently judged to be paying councillors more than the going rate, maybe it was both. If you got paid by results though I suspect the councillors in charge at three Rivers, and that includes you Sara, would be working for nothing while waiting for the electorate to kick you out at the next election. No pay rise? It's only because you do not deserve one! A ****-up like William Penn in private industry would have seen heads roll, but then, that is the real world and this is council.
There you go folks, UKIP are AGAINST paying people a living wage ie paying enough so that people can actually afford the basics in life (although a living wage is still far from allowing a comfortable life) such as food and heating. Wasnt it Nigel Farrage that boasted of £2mill of expenses claims not so long ago? And remind us please Mr Cox, that MEP that was jailed for fraud a couple of months ago which party was he from?
Tony, follow by all means whatever personal political affiliations to wish to and by all means oppose UKIP if that floats your boat, but please do others the courtesy to read and understand their posts before passing incorrect judgement. I have previously said that I find the living wage a good thing. It's here somewhere in black and white. In this post I question the cost of doing so at TRDC and Sara's diabolical attitude to money, sorry, our tax money. (I'm sure she spends her own money far more wisely.) Who knows Tony, you may live in a cossetted world, like the LibDem councillors, where money is no object because you are spending other peoples money, but in the real world the rest of us have to manage our money and spend it wisely. No council should embark on a project like paying the living wage without first costing the project and working out how to pay for it. Some people working hard and earning below the living wage might find it unattractive to pay an extra 10% (say) on their council tax so that civil servants get the living wage. What would you say to them? Some people might prefer to heat their homes or put food on the table given the choice between that and paying a much higher council tax. Money doesn't grow on trees, it's something that councillors and some posters to these pages would do well to remember. Finally the point I am making is that principles are great, but in the case of things such as this they must also be affordable to the people who pay the bills, the taxpayer, and provide value for money. A responsible council would know that already. Others are just living in cloud cuckoo land, and we are paying the rent!
You cant be for it and then complain when people want to implement it.
Although you're a wannabe politician so double standards are no suprise
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: Lib Dem run Three Rivers adopted the Living Wage earlier this year. It bankrupts no-one and helps treat staff with dignity. Once again @TRT, we won't be increasing our allowances. BTW @Phil, this deliberately getting Stephen Giles-Medhurst's name wrong is rather childish, just as those who use silly names for Watford's Mayor, or who used to talk about Tony Bliar. Says more about those who do it.[/p][/quote]The contempt in which elected politicians like Sara hold the electorate and the ease of which they are generous with other peoples money never ceases to amaze me. The charge that they do not live in the real world is not an unreasonable one to make although I am sure that in their real lives they are not so generous with their own money as they are with ours. Sara and her LibDem colleagues at Three Rivers have introduced the living wage and she casually justifies it with the comment "It bankrupts no-one". Let's examine what Sara said - "It bankrupts no-one". Well, if that is their criteria at three Rivers and in the LibDem party as a whole, which is probably true judging by their actions, god help us mere taxpayers because they won't stop until we are all bankrupted! "It bankrupts no-one" - That really is a trite argument, Sara. By the way, no-one died. It is not relevant either, but I thought I would throw it in so Sara can use it in future when she is defending or justifying some expensive scheme or council project disaster like William Penn. My question is, does it have to cause bankruptcies before Sara will actually consider the costs of her actions in being generous with OUR tax-monies? Sara, for goodness sake,wake up, start being responsible with our taxes! It's really not your money, it's ours. You work for us, remember? The whole council does. Well of course it doesn't bankrupt anyone Sara, because no-one in council pays for it. You councillors do not contribute a single extra penny to what you spend in council so you will definitely not be bankrupted by your high spending in council. Instead it is us, the taxpayers who you hold in such contempt who pay for your kind and generous actions with our taxes. Now, down to the nitty gritty. So Sara, how much has it cost so far? How much will it cost per year when it is fully implemented? More importantly, how much is it predicted to cost in the future once council pay scales and pensions are adjusted upwards to reflect the living wage at the bottom of the pay scales, or haven't you worked that out yet? Will it equate to a pay rise, through knock-on effect, for everyone in council? Maybe it's better for you not to work it out. After all, the electorate might be shocked at the cost implications of your actions. OK, so now you have committed to this scheme, how will you pay for this Sara? Borrow the money? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Raid reserves? (NB You can't keep on doing that so this can only be a stop-gap measure) Or will you just put up our council taxes like usual to pay for your schemes "without bankrupting anyone". This seems the more likely option. So Sara and the LibDems are for higher taxes for everyone who pays council tax. That is so LibDem. Remember that when you get to the polls next year. Did the William Penn fiasco bankrupt anyone Sara? (N.B.. As far as I know, no-one died either). You and your council "did not bankrupt anyone" with William Penn renovations, yet you presided over a complete fiasco that cost the council (how many millions was it?). And didn't the council try to cover it all up? Many people will find that idea quite disgusting, of a council covering up such hugely expensive incompetence, and particularly on such a grand scale. Well Sara, you are obviously a very kind and generous person, particularly when it comes to other peoples money. In fact, so generous are you that you have foregone a rise in councillors pay. Sara, you keep pressing the point in comment after comment that you are not increasing your councillor allowances as though that is some sort of noble gesture. To some that may be how it looks. I suspect these allowances are generous enough. I can't remember if it was Watford or Three Rivers that was recently judged to be paying councillors more than the going rate, maybe it was both. If you got paid by results though I suspect the councillors in charge at three Rivers, and that includes you Sara, would be working for nothing while waiting for the electorate to kick you out at the next election. No pay rise? It's only because you do not deserve one! A ****-up like William Penn in private industry would have seen heads roll, but then, that is the real world and this is council.[/p][/quote]There you go folks, UKIP are AGAINST paying people a living wage ie paying enough so that people can actually afford the basics in life (although a living wage is still far from allowing a comfortable life) such as food and heating. Wasnt it Nigel Farrage that boasted of £2mill of expenses claims not so long ago? And remind us please Mr Cox, that MEP that was jailed for fraud a couple of months ago which party was he from?[/p][/quote]Tony, follow by all means whatever personal political affiliations to wish to and by all means oppose UKIP if that floats your boat, but please do others the courtesy to read and understand their posts before passing incorrect judgement. I have previously said that I find the living wage a good thing. It's here somewhere in black and white. In this post I question the cost of doing so at TRDC and Sara's diabolical attitude to money, sorry, our tax money. (I'm sure she spends her own money far more wisely.) Who knows Tony, you may live in a cossetted world, like the LibDem councillors, where money is no object because you are spending other peoples money, but in the real world the rest of us have to manage our money and spend it wisely. No council should embark on a project like paying the living wage without first costing the project and working out how to pay for it. Some people working hard and earning below the living wage might find it unattractive to pay an extra 10% (say) on their council tax so that civil servants get the living wage. What would you say to them? Some people might prefer to heat their homes or put food on the table given the choice between that and paying a much higher council tax. Money doesn't grow on trees, it's something that councillors and some posters to these pages would do well to remember. Finally the point I am making is that principles are great, but in the case of things such as this they must also be affordable to the people who pay the bills, the taxpayer, and provide value for money. A responsible council would know that already. Others are just living in cloud cuckoo land, and we are paying the rent![/p][/quote]You cant be for it and then complain when people want to implement it. Although you're a wannabe politician so double standards are no suprise garston tony

11:30am Wed 11 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Double standards? No, just an ability to recognise reality over rhetoric.

Tony, you're wrong. You can be for something whilst at the same time recognising the cost of doing so may be prohibitive. The key word there is "may".

Only in a state run enterprise could you implement a political decision without worrying about the financial implications, where overspends are dealt with by putting up the council tax, effectively "a bottomless pit of free money".

Politicians are lucky to have people like you who do not care how much council tax they pay. For everyone else, there's UKIP.

Councils are also lucky not to have any competition in the services they offer.
Double standards? No, just an ability to recognise reality over rhetoric. Tony, you're wrong. You can be for something whilst at the same time recognising the cost of doing so may be prohibitive. The key word there is "may". Only in a state run enterprise could you implement a political decision without worrying about the financial implications, where overspends are dealt with by putting up the council tax, effectively "a bottomless pit of free money". Politicians are lucky to have people like you who do not care how much council tax they pay. For everyone else, there's UKIP. Councils are also lucky not to have any competition in the services they offer. Phil Cox (UKIP)

3:15pm Wed 11 Dec 13

garston tony says...

So UKIP would refuse to pay the poorest, often hardest working state employees a living wage for the sake of what was it, 2pence per person per year in the borough?

Tick. Yet another reason not to vote for them.

I note by the way no comment from you about Nigel Farage's expenses or the UKIP MEP done for fraud. The cost of implementing this living wage amounts to around four days worth of expenses claims for Farage doesnt it? How many people could have been paid the living wage with all the money defrauded (and subsquent cost of investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating) by UKIP politicians like Cox?

UKIP are NO different to any other party no matter how much you try and claim otherwise.
So UKIP would refuse to pay the poorest, often hardest working state employees a living wage for the sake of what was it, 2pence per person per year in the borough? Tick. Yet another reason not to vote for them. I note by the way no comment from you about Nigel Farage's expenses or the UKIP MEP done for fraud. The cost of implementing this living wage amounts to around four days worth of expenses claims for Farage doesnt it? How many people could have been paid the living wage with all the money defrauded (and subsquent cost of investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating) by UKIP politicians like Cox? UKIP are NO different to any other party no matter how much you try and claim otherwise. garston tony

6:05pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

garston tony wrote:
So UKIP would refuse to pay the poorest, often hardest working state employees a living wage for the sake of what was it, 2pence per person per year in the borough? Tick. Yet another reason not to vote for them. I note by the way no comment from you about Nigel Farage's expenses or the UKIP MEP done for fraud. The cost of implementing this living wage amounts to around four days worth of expenses claims for Farage doesnt it? How many people could have been paid the living wage with all the money defrauded (and subsquent cost of investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating) by UKIP politicians like Cox? UKIP are NO different to any other party no matter how much you try and claim otherwise.
Tony,

I doubt anything I can say will overcome your prejudice against UKIP.

You read my posts and then twist and turn them until they suit your needs, often adding 2 and 2 and coming up with -26.

I will leave you to your anti-UKIP thoughts, safe in the knowledge that so many other residents of Watford are not so prejudiced and are prepared to listen to what we have to say with an open mind.

We are different to the other parties, very different, but if it suits you not to believe that, so be it. What is it you have against UKIP?

I hope that once we get elected in Watford we will have a chance to prove you wrong and show how different we really are. Who knows, you may even like what we do differently.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: So UKIP would refuse to pay the poorest, often hardest working state employees a living wage for the sake of what was it, 2pence per person per year in the borough? Tick. Yet another reason not to vote for them. I note by the way no comment from you about Nigel Farage's expenses or the UKIP MEP done for fraud. The cost of implementing this living wage amounts to around four days worth of expenses claims for Farage doesnt it? How many people could have been paid the living wage with all the money defrauded (and subsquent cost of investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating) by UKIP politicians like Cox? UKIP are NO different to any other party no matter how much you try and claim otherwise.[/p][/quote]Tony, I doubt anything I can say will overcome your prejudice against UKIP. You read my posts and then twist and turn them until they suit your needs, often adding 2 and 2 and coming up with -26. I will leave you to your anti-UKIP thoughts, safe in the knowledge that so many other residents of Watford are not so prejudiced and are prepared to listen to what we have to say with an open mind. We are different to the other parties, very different, but if it suits you not to believe that, so be it. What is it you have against UKIP? I hope that once we get elected in Watford we will have a chance to prove you wrong and show how different we really are. Who knows, you may even like what we do differently. Phil Cox (UKIP)

6:11pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Sara wrote:
I haven't got a link as I have copies already of the documents.
The document references will do. That might allow me to search for them or get a copy from the council.

Dates and references please.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: I haven't got a link as I have copies already of the documents.[/p][/quote]The document references will do. That might allow me to search for them or get a copy from the council. Dates and references please. Phil Cox (UKIP)

10:55pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Sara says...

The Living Wage report is in the October Exec agenda. I don't know where anything else is.
The Living Wage report is in the October Exec agenda. I don't know where anything else is. Sara

11:07pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Sara wrote:
The Living Wage report is in the October Exec agenda. I don't know where anything else is.
Thank you, I shall have a go at getting hold of it to see if it contains the information I require.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: The Living Wage report is in the October Exec agenda. I don't know where anything else is.[/p][/quote]Thank you, I shall have a go at getting hold of it to see if it contains the information I require. Phil Cox (UKIP)

10:41am Thu 12 Dec 13

rainbowwarrior says...

How strange it seems like Cox (and careful how you pronounce that folks !) and Bux are not in agreement on this one. Not a great start to your UKIP relationship.

I actually agree with you on this one Cllr Malcolm Meerabux, perhaps you could have a word with Phil 'anti-everything Cox.
How strange it seems like Cox (and careful how you pronounce that folks !) and Bux are not in agreement on this one. Not a great start to your UKIP relationship. I actually agree with you on this one Cllr Malcolm Meerabux, perhaps you could have a word with Phil 'anti-everything Cox. rainbowwarrior

10:49am Thu 12 Dec 13

rainbowwarrior says...

Funny Phil have you read your Manifesto ?

The bit where you support low paid staff ?

So far everything you say seems to be against Party Policy.

Vote UKIP if you want low paid workers to stay below the living wage, and if you don't care about speeding drivers !!
Funny Phil have you read your Manifesto ? The bit where you support low paid staff ? So far everything you say seems to be against Party Policy. Vote UKIP if you want low paid workers to stay below the living wage, and if you don't care about speeding drivers !! rainbowwarrior

10:52am Thu 12 Dec 13

rainbowwarrior says...

Do you recognise this Phil ?

I have done all sorts of jobs since the age of 16 from being a cleaner in a factory, a shop worker and delivery man, an office worker and now I find myself working for the best boss of all, myself. I own and run my own IT business and have done for the last 15 years.

and

I know what it’s like to be hard up, and I also know what it’s like not to be hard up.
Do you recognise this Phil ? I have done all sorts of jobs since the age of 16 from being a cleaner in a factory, a shop worker and delivery man, an office worker and now I find myself working for the best boss of all, myself. I own and run my own IT business and have done for the last 15 years. and I know what it’s like to be hard up, and I also know what it’s like not to be hard up. rainbowwarrior

2:58pm Thu 12 Dec 13

garston tony says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote: So UKIP would refuse to pay the poorest, often hardest working state employees a living wage for the sake of what was it, 2pence per person per year in the borough? Tick. Yet another reason not to vote for them. I note by the way no comment from you about Nigel Farage's expenses or the UKIP MEP done for fraud. The cost of implementing this living wage amounts to around four days worth of expenses claims for Farage doesnt it? How many people could have been paid the living wage with all the money defrauded (and subsquent cost of investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating) by UKIP politicians like Cox? UKIP are NO different to any other party no matter how much you try and claim otherwise.
Tony, I doubt anything I can say will overcome your prejudice against UKIP. You read my posts and then twist and turn them until they suit your needs, often adding 2 and 2 and coming up with -26. I will leave you to your anti-UKIP thoughts, safe in the knowledge that so many other residents of Watford are not so prejudiced and are prepared to listen to what we have to say with an open mind. We are different to the other parties, very different, but if it suits you not to believe that, so be it. What is it you have against UKIP? I hope that once we get elected in Watford we will have a chance to prove you wrong and show how different we really are. Who knows, you may even like what we do differently.
Your comments on this website have been the worst advert for UKIP, you've flipped flopped along and miss no opportunity to jump on a bandwagon. Many of your statements have been naive or not thought through, lacked vision or common sense and once again you have ignored a direct comment about activities of UKIP leadership and elected members.

So no, no different to any other party then. Exactly the same
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: So UKIP would refuse to pay the poorest, often hardest working state employees a living wage for the sake of what was it, 2pence per person per year in the borough? Tick. Yet another reason not to vote for them. I note by the way no comment from you about Nigel Farage's expenses or the UKIP MEP done for fraud. The cost of implementing this living wage amounts to around four days worth of expenses claims for Farage doesnt it? How many people could have been paid the living wage with all the money defrauded (and subsquent cost of investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating) by UKIP politicians like Cox? UKIP are NO different to any other party no matter how much you try and claim otherwise.[/p][/quote]Tony, I doubt anything I can say will overcome your prejudice against UKIP. You read my posts and then twist and turn them until they suit your needs, often adding 2 and 2 and coming up with -26. I will leave you to your anti-UKIP thoughts, safe in the knowledge that so many other residents of Watford are not so prejudiced and are prepared to listen to what we have to say with an open mind. We are different to the other parties, very different, but if it suits you not to believe that, so be it. What is it you have against UKIP? I hope that once we get elected in Watford we will have a chance to prove you wrong and show how different we really are. Who knows, you may even like what we do differently.[/p][/quote]Your comments on this website have been the worst advert for UKIP, you've flipped flopped along and miss no opportunity to jump on a bandwagon. Many of your statements have been naive or not thought through, lacked vision or common sense and once again you have ignored a direct comment about activities of UKIP leadership and elected members. So no, no different to any other party then. Exactly the same garston tony

3:02pm Thu 12 Dec 13

garston tony says...

rainbowwarrior wrote:
How strange it seems like Cox (and careful how you pronounce that folks !) and Bux are not in agreement on this one. Not a great start to your UKIP relationship. I actually agree with you on this one Cllr Malcolm Meerabux, perhaps you could have a word with Phil 'anti-everything Cox.
'Anti everything' Cox is about right, hence my comments about him just jumping on bandwagons.
[quote][p][bold]rainbowwarrior[/bold] wrote: How strange it seems like Cox (and careful how you pronounce that folks !) and Bux are not in agreement on this one. Not a great start to your UKIP relationship. I actually agree with you on this one Cllr Malcolm Meerabux, perhaps you could have a word with Phil 'anti-everything Cox.[/p][/quote]'Anti everything' Cox is about right, hence my comments about him just jumping on bandwagons. garston tony

4:28pm Thu 12 Dec 13

abbotshornet says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
The living wage is a good idea. The trouble is, how is Nigel and Giles going to pay for it? Does they or their parties have a clue about how much such a thing will cost and how they will meet those costs? Labour has a track record on finance. It doesn't have a clue. LibDems are much the same. At least the Tories seem to care about keeping costs under control. Judging by the comments from the Tories I doubt they have worked out the costs either, but have just tried to put people off by doing the emotional "it will put up the price of school meals". There is no reason I can see why this increase would need to be met from school meal charges, that is just emotional blackmail by the Tories. This would potentially cost an absolute fortune to implement, mainly due to the hidden costs of doing so. No-one in this story comes out well, they all look rather incompetent and/or disingenuous.
But surely if workers don't get a living wage they will need to rely on benefits to top their meager wages, which comes straight out of our taxes.
I think that if we are committed to school meals or whatever else the local authority does it should be funded properly.
The root of the problem is that central government if reducing funding year in year out to local authorities so services are suffering.
Ordinary people are still paying for the mistakes and greed of the bankers.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: The living wage is a good idea. The trouble is, how is Nigel and Giles going to pay for it? Does they or their parties have a clue about how much such a thing will cost and how they will meet those costs? Labour has a track record on finance. It doesn't have a clue. LibDems are much the same. At least the Tories seem to care about keeping costs under control. Judging by the comments from the Tories I doubt they have worked out the costs either, but have just tried to put people off by doing the emotional "it will put up the price of school meals". There is no reason I can see why this increase would need to be met from school meal charges, that is just emotional blackmail by the Tories. This would potentially cost an absolute fortune to implement, mainly due to the hidden costs of doing so. No-one in this story comes out well, they all look rather incompetent and/or disingenuous.[/p][/quote]But surely if workers don't get a living wage they will need to rely on benefits to top their meager wages, which comes straight out of our taxes. I think that if we are committed to school meals or whatever else the local authority does it should be funded properly. The root of the problem is that central government if reducing funding year in year out to local authorities so services are suffering. Ordinary people are still paying for the mistakes and greed of the bankers. abbotshornet

5:28pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

rainbowwarrior wrote:
Funny Phil have you read your Manifesto ? The bit where you support low paid staff ? So far everything you say seems to be against Party Policy. Vote UKIP if you want low paid workers to stay below the living wage, and if you don't care about speeding drivers !!
Show me anywhere on official UKIP policy where it says it wants people to stay below the living wage. It doesn't.

It is just more unjustified slurs on UKIP by those who are scared of UKIP, i.e. the other main parties who have so much to lose.

UKIP does not support speeding drivers either, primarily because UKIP is not stupid.

Where on earth do you get these stupid ideas from? Not UKIP, that's for sure.

Vote UKIP for common sense, you won't get it from people like Rainbowwarrior.
[quote][p][bold]rainbowwarrior[/bold] wrote: Funny Phil have you read your Manifesto ? The bit where you support low paid staff ? So far everything you say seems to be against Party Policy. Vote UKIP if you want low paid workers to stay below the living wage, and if you don't care about speeding drivers !![/p][/quote]Show me anywhere on official UKIP policy where it says it wants people to stay below the living wage. It doesn't. It is just more unjustified slurs on UKIP by those who are scared of UKIP, i.e. the other main parties who have so much to lose. UKIP does not support speeding drivers either, primarily because UKIP is not stupid. Where on earth do you get these stupid ideas from? Not UKIP, that's for sure. Vote UKIP for common sense, you won't get it from people like Rainbowwarrior. Phil Cox (UKIP)

5:31pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote: So UKIP would refuse to pay the poorest, often hardest working state employees a living wage for the sake of what was it, 2pence per person per year in the borough? Tick. Yet another reason not to vote for them. I note by the way no comment from you about Nigel Farage's expenses or the UKIP MEP done for fraud. The cost of implementing this living wage amounts to around four days worth of expenses claims for Farage doesnt it? How many people could have been paid the living wage with all the money defrauded (and subsquent cost of investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating) by UKIP politicians like Cox? UKIP are NO different to any other party no matter how much you try and claim otherwise.
Tony, I doubt anything I can say will overcome your prejudice against UKIP. You read my posts and then twist and turn them until they suit your needs, often adding 2 and 2 and coming up with -26. I will leave you to your anti-UKIP thoughts, safe in the knowledge that so many other residents of Watford are not so prejudiced and are prepared to listen to what we have to say with an open mind. We are different to the other parties, very different, but if it suits you not to believe that, so be it. What is it you have against UKIP? I hope that once we get elected in Watford we will have a chance to prove you wrong and show how different we really are. Who knows, you may even like what we do differently.
Your comments on this website have been the worst advert for UKIP, you've flipped flopped along and miss no opportunity to jump on a bandwagon. Many of your statements have been naive or not thought through, lacked vision or common sense and once again you have ignored a direct comment about activities of UKIP leadership and elected members. So no, no different to any other party then. Exactly the same
Actions speak louder than words Tony. You do not listen to my words so watch what we do when we get elected in Watford.

UKIP will be a breath of fresh air into council.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: So UKIP would refuse to pay the poorest, often hardest working state employees a living wage for the sake of what was it, 2pence per person per year in the borough? Tick. Yet another reason not to vote for them. I note by the way no comment from you about Nigel Farage's expenses or the UKIP MEP done for fraud. The cost of implementing this living wage amounts to around four days worth of expenses claims for Farage doesnt it? How many people could have been paid the living wage with all the money defrauded (and subsquent cost of investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating) by UKIP politicians like Cox? UKIP are NO different to any other party no matter how much you try and claim otherwise.[/p][/quote]Tony, I doubt anything I can say will overcome your prejudice against UKIP. You read my posts and then twist and turn them until they suit your needs, often adding 2 and 2 and coming up with -26. I will leave you to your anti-UKIP thoughts, safe in the knowledge that so many other residents of Watford are not so prejudiced and are prepared to listen to what we have to say with an open mind. We are different to the other parties, very different, but if it suits you not to believe that, so be it. What is it you have against UKIP? I hope that once we get elected in Watford we will have a chance to prove you wrong and show how different we really are. Who knows, you may even like what we do differently.[/p][/quote]Your comments on this website have been the worst advert for UKIP, you've flipped flopped along and miss no opportunity to jump on a bandwagon. Many of your statements have been naive or not thought through, lacked vision or common sense and once again you have ignored a direct comment about activities of UKIP leadership and elected members. So no, no different to any other party then. Exactly the same[/p][/quote]Actions speak louder than words Tony. You do not listen to my words so watch what we do when we get elected in Watford. UKIP will be a breath of fresh air into council. Phil Cox (UKIP)

9:09am Fri 13 Dec 13

Cuetip says...

garston tony
Hi. As a matter of interest has the character described below shown any cards on this issue or is he just like a bull in a china shop as usual. At least sara, Phil Cox and Abbots hornet shoots straight as shown by Abbots hornet comment below.

Can I be presumptions and assume you have a degree of astuteness and recognise that Rainbowwarrior is just such a sweet little tease acting as a lovely agent provocateur for his defunct party with no local policies or candidates apart from Vicky? Hence visualise the images of some poor old sop randomly throwing toys out of the pram but doesn't know why. ‘Stupid is as stupid does’.

And oh gosh, I do hate using language that upsets him most terribly almost bringing on seizures and besides is lost on him like sophistry but he seems to be stuck and desperately straining to drop something nasty and he really needs to be careful or it just PILES up.

Abbots hornet says... 4:28pm Thu 12 Dec 13 But surely if workers don't get a living wage they will need to rely on benefits to top their meager wages, which comes straight out of our taxes.
I think that if we are committed to school meals or whatever else the local authority does it should be funded properly.
The root of the problem is that central government if reducing funding year in year out to local authorities so services are suffering.
Ordinary people are still paying for the mistakes and greed of the bankers.
garston tony Hi. As a matter of interest has the character described below shown any cards on this issue or is he just like a bull in a china shop as usual. At least sara, Phil Cox and Abbots hornet shoots straight as shown by Abbots hornet comment below. Can I be presumptions and assume you have a degree of astuteness and recognise that Rainbowwarrior is just such a sweet little tease acting as a lovely agent provocateur for his defunct party with no local policies or candidates apart from Vicky? Hence visualise the images of some poor old sop randomly throwing toys out of the pram but doesn't know why. ‘Stupid is as stupid does’. And oh gosh, I do hate using language that upsets him most terribly almost bringing on seizures and besides is lost on him like sophistry but he seems to be stuck and desperately straining to drop something nasty and he really needs to be careful or it just PILES up. Abbots hornet says... 4:28pm Thu 12 Dec 13 But surely if workers don't get a living wage they will need to rely on benefits to top their meager wages, which comes straight out of our taxes. I think that if we are committed to school meals or whatever else the local authority does it should be funded properly. The root of the problem is that central government if reducing funding year in year out to local authorities so services are suffering. Ordinary people are still paying for the mistakes and greed of the bankers. Cuetip

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree