Blackburn Tory leader calls on council staff to give up their bonuses

Coun Mike Lee

Coun Mike Lee

First published in Blackburn

BLACKBURN with Darwen Tory group leader Mike Lee has called on town hall staff to give up their annual service pay rises – even though his wife Jane would lose out.

He believes workers doing without the increments they are entitled to could save £2 million over two years to help bridge the council cash gap.

Coun Lee spoke out after borough staff agreed to continue an unpaid leave agreement where they take off four extra days a year.

This will save a further £890,000 towards the missing £3 million of the £30 million savings over two years that finance chiefs have been ordered to find by the government.

It comes on top of 500 jobs losses from the council’s 2,800 staff, the closure of old people’s homes and children’s centre and shorter hours and higher fees for leisure facilities.

So far the authority has found savings of £27 million. Coun Lee believes giving up the annual service increments could make another £2 million dent in the remaining £3 million to be found.

His wife Jane is a senior council employee on the middle of her scale and entitled to a small annual increase despite a freeze on main pay rates already in force for three years.

Coun Lee said: “I welcome the extension of the unpaid leave agreement for another two years. Now I hope the council and unions will agree to give up increments for two years, saving an annual £1 million. That would help close the cash gap and potentially save jobs and services.

“It would affect my wife Jane but she and her colleagues would happily give up their small annual increases to save other people’s livelihoods.”

Borough resources chief Andy Kay said: “The continuing co-operation of the trade unions is helping us mitigate the impact of these unprecedented Government cuts.

“I don’t think asking council staff to give up this entitlement to a small annual pay increment is fair in view of everything else they are doing in terms of unpaid leave and accepting a continuing pay freeze.

“Coun Lee could always go and ask the unions himself.”

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:32pm Wed 20 Feb 13

emigrator says...

Wonder if Councillor Lee has looked at the longer term effect on his wifes pension when foregoing these increments !!
Wonder if Councillor Lee has looked at the longer term effect on his wifes pension when foregoing these increments !! emigrator
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Wed 20 Feb 13

raggedtrouseredphilanthropist says...

When the last of the Council services has ended, and the last Council employee sacked I bet the Councillors will still want to collect their big fat allowances and expenses!
When the last of the Council services has ended, and the last Council employee sacked I bet the Councillors will still want to collect their big fat allowances and expenses! raggedtrouseredphilanthropist
  • Score: 1

9:16pm Wed 20 Feb 13

rggraham1947 says...

How can it be a "pay freeze" if they're still getting annual increments?
How can it be a "pay freeze" if they're still getting annual increments? rggraham1947
  • Score: 0

12:32am Thu 21 Feb 13

s_smith says...

Of course Councillor Lee could also be petitioning the Boundary Commission to reduce the number of councillors per ward. After all, does each ward REALLY need three councillors? Do they even need two?!
Of course Councillor Lee could also be petitioning the Boundary Commission to reduce the number of councillors per ward. After all, does each ward REALLY need three councillors? Do they even need two?! s_smith
  • Score: 1

7:52am Thu 21 Feb 13

j-vani says...

The council would not need to find the £3 million if Cllr Lee's party had not made the unfair budget cuts in the first place..... The difference between the North and South is scandalous
The council would not need to find the £3 million if Cllr Lee's party had not made the unfair budget cuts in the first place..... The difference between the North and South is scandalous j-vani
  • Score: 1

10:03am Thu 21 Feb 13

BlackburnEyes says...

j-vani wrote:
The council would not need to find the £3 million if Cllr Lee's party had not made the unfair budget cuts in the first place..... The difference between the North and South is scandalous
unfair according to who? i would call it rebalancing and ensuring money is not frittled away as the previous party's have done! Ensuring that those in benefits are not more wealthier than those in employment will go some way in making sure the 'cuts' have long term benefits to the welfare state....and what do you base your north and south scandal on?
[quote][p][bold]j-vani[/bold] wrote: The council would not need to find the £3 million if Cllr Lee's party had not made the unfair budget cuts in the first place..... The difference between the North and South is scandalous[/p][/quote]unfair according to who? i would call it rebalancing and ensuring money is not frittled away as the previous party's have done! Ensuring that those in benefits are not more wealthier than those in employment will go some way in making sure the 'cuts' have long term benefits to the welfare state....and what do you base your north and south scandal on? BlackburnEyes
  • Score: -1

1:06pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Private I says...

BlackburnEyes wrote:
j-vani wrote:
The council would not need to find the £3 million if Cllr Lee's party had not made the unfair budget cuts in the first place..... The difference between the North and South is scandalous
unfair according to who? i would call it rebalancing and ensuring money is not frittled away as the previous party's have done! Ensuring that those in benefits are not more wealthier than those in employment will go some way in making sure the 'cuts' have long term benefits to the welfare state....and what do you base your north and south scandal on?
When BlackburnEyes puts his Tory Party membership card back in his fat wallet he may wish to reflect on his definition of re balancing where independent analysis show that every person in Blackburn with Darwen has lost £205.40 as a result of the savage cuts imposed by the Coalition Government whereas leafy Boroughs, mainly in the South, have been treated much less harshly. For example, residents who live in Richmond upon Thames have only lost a paltry £12 each and those who live in Cheshire East represented by the Chancellor George Osborne have only lost £20. But of course we are all in this together!!
[quote][p][bold]BlackburnEyes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]j-vani[/bold] wrote: The council would not need to find the £3 million if Cllr Lee's party had not made the unfair budget cuts in the first place..... The difference between the North and South is scandalous[/p][/quote]unfair according to who? i would call it rebalancing and ensuring money is not frittled away as the previous party's have done! Ensuring that those in benefits are not more wealthier than those in employment will go some way in making sure the 'cuts' have long term benefits to the welfare state....and what do you base your north and south scandal on?[/p][/quote]When BlackburnEyes puts his Tory Party membership card back in his fat wallet he may wish to reflect on his definition of re balancing where independent analysis show that every person in Blackburn with Darwen has lost £205.40 as a result of the savage cuts imposed by the Coalition Government whereas leafy Boroughs, mainly in the South, have been treated much less harshly. For example, residents who live in Richmond upon Thames have only lost a paltry £12 each and those who live in Cheshire East represented by the Chancellor George Osborne have only lost £20. But of course we are all in this together!! Private I
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Thu 21 Feb 13

blackburnblue1 says...

give them their bonus,whats a few million over 2years
give them their bonus,whats a few million over 2years blackburnblue1
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Fri 22 Feb 13

BlackburnEyes says...

Private I wrote:
BlackburnEyes wrote:
j-vani wrote: The council would not need to find the £3 million if Cllr Lee's party had not made the unfair budget cuts in the first place..... The difference between the North and South is scandalous
unfair according to who? i would call it rebalancing and ensuring money is not frittled away as the previous party's have done! Ensuring that those in benefits are not more wealthier than those in employment will go some way in making sure the 'cuts' have long term benefits to the welfare state....and what do you base your north and south scandal on?
When BlackburnEyes puts his Tory Party membership card back in his fat wallet he may wish to reflect on his definition of re balancing where independent analysis show that every person in Blackburn with Darwen has lost £205.40 as a result of the savage cuts imposed by the Coalition Government whereas leafy Boroughs, mainly in the South, have been treated much less harshly. For example, residents who live in Richmond upon Thames have only lost a paltry £12 each and those who live in Cheshire East represented by the Chancellor George Osborne have only lost £20. But of course we are all in this together!!
I am not an affliate of any party unlike you... copying and pasting inaccurate facts straight from a certain local labour website does not consitute independent analysis and producing figures out of demographic context is typical of your ilk! people who live in richmond upon thames do not require benefits such as council tax JSA and other "savage" benefits because if you live in Richmond upon thames you will already have "fat" wallets same goes for cheshire east...and yes we are in this together because tax payers like me pay for those who put their feet up at home...a benefit you had when the liebours were in town now they have been turfed out the condems are redressing unfairness towards those that work, save and progress as opposed to eat, s hit and sleep their way through life!
[quote][p][bold]Private I[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BlackburnEyes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]j-vani[/bold] wrote: The council would not need to find the £3 million if Cllr Lee's party had not made the unfair budget cuts in the first place..... The difference between the North and South is scandalous[/p][/quote]unfair according to who? i would call it rebalancing and ensuring money is not frittled away as the previous party's have done! Ensuring that those in benefits are not more wealthier than those in employment will go some way in making sure the 'cuts' have long term benefits to the welfare state....and what do you base your north and south scandal on?[/p][/quote]When BlackburnEyes puts his Tory Party membership card back in his fat wallet he may wish to reflect on his definition of re balancing where independent analysis show that every person in Blackburn with Darwen has lost £205.40 as a result of the savage cuts imposed by the Coalition Government whereas leafy Boroughs, mainly in the South, have been treated much less harshly. For example, residents who live in Richmond upon Thames have only lost a paltry £12 each and those who live in Cheshire East represented by the Chancellor George Osborne have only lost £20. But of course we are all in this together!![/p][/quote]I am not an affliate of any party unlike you... copying and pasting inaccurate facts straight from a certain local labour website does not consitute independent analysis and producing figures out of demographic context is typical of your ilk! people who live in richmond upon thames do not require benefits such as council tax JSA and other "savage" benefits because if you live in Richmond upon thames you will already have "fat" wallets same goes for cheshire east...and yes we are in this together because tax payers like me pay for those who put their feet up at home...a benefit you had when the liebours were in town now they have been turfed out the condems are redressing unfairness towards those that work, save and progress as opposed to eat, s hit and sleep their way through life! BlackburnEyes
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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