Opposition councillors have criticised Labour for halving the mayor’s allowance to pay a “special responsibility allowance” to the holder of a political post – the party’s chief whip.
They said that it ignored the recommendations of the independent panel that reviewed the basic allowances for members of Brighton and Hove City Council as well as additional payments for those with special responsibilities.
The panel’s recommendations were vote on yesterday (Thursday 22 May) at the annual council meeting at Hove Town Hall, along with the amendment proposed by Labour.
The basic allowance was unchanged at £14,218 a year, subject to indexed increases, but opposition councillors criticised the halving of the mayor’s allowance to fund an allowance for the party whip.
It was previously £11,090 – or 30 per cent of the leader’s allowance of £36,967 – but was halved to 15 per cent so the whip could also receive an allowance worth 15 per cent.
Technically, councillors are not paid a salary but receive an allowance in recognition of the time that they volunteer to spend on their role.
The report to the council said: “The role of mayor is highly visible across the council area and continues to undertake a high number of civic engagements that raise the profile of the council and this is reflected in the current allowance.
“The panel was of the view that the mayoral allowance should continue to be at the same percentage of the leader’s allowance, 30 per cent.”
The Labour leader of the council, Bella Sankey, proposed dividing the allowance between the mayor and the chief whip – and this was voted through because Labour has a big majority.
Councillor Sankey said that the amendment was “cost-neutral” while recognising the significant role of the chief whip. She said that this was something that other councils already did.
She said: “We do feel strongly that the role of the chief whip is important to recognise as a special responsibility because of the significant role the chief whip of the largest party plays in supporting council business.
“As amended, I believe the scheme will be fair and proportionate.”
Former mayor and Green councillor Pete West said that he wondered why the council had consulted the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) if Labour just wanted to “pick and choose” from the recommendations.
Councillor West said: “The reason why the IRP was introduced was to stop the annual spectacle of councillors deciding their own allowances which gave the public the impression of self-serving politicians acting like pigs at the trough.
“We now have a proposal from Labour to pay a position of chief whip which the IRP identified as party political. Of course it’s party political as the role is just for the Labour Party and not one serving the whole council.”
Fellow Green councillor Raphael Hill said: “Special responsibility allowances shouldn’t be decided by the whims of councillors but by an independent entity to ensure faith in the way that we use this scarce public money.
“I can appreciate the Labour group needs to give money to the chief whip as their chief whip will have their work cut out for them keeping Labour councillors in line while the Labour government continues to attack the most vulnerable members of our society and is nose-diving in the polls as it panders to fascism.”
Councillor Hill asked the six former mayors in the chamber to consider the impact they had in the role.
Conservative leader Alistair McNair said that it was no surprise that Labour was giving its own senior councillors a substantial rise.
Councillor McNair said: “Councillors should be paid. It’s important work and we should attract people from walks of life. But is it right that there should be pay increases in this economic climate?
“If there’s one thing we’ve learned about Labour, it’s they love a pay rise. The trouble is all this spending on pay rises is leading to a big black hole for the nation’s finances.”
Former Labour councillor Bruno De Oliveira, who now sits as an Independent after leaving the party over cuts to international aid, voted against the rise.
Councillor De Oliveira spoke of his “utter disappointment” and said: “I really get the hard work of members.
“But deep down some of you might be very uneasy to know that out there are people, especially disabled people, who are facing cuts to their benefits coming from the top.
“There are people who spent the winter freezing because they had the winter allowance cut. Overseas there are children who do not have food because cuts to foreign aid have been made.
“I’m not afraid to stand as one lonely voice but I cannot really believe that deep down some of my colleagues think this is a good decision.”
The Independent Remuneration Panel recommended increasing special responsibility allowances for cabinet members to £14,787 – or 40 per cent of the leader’s allowance. It was previously 35 per cent.
The total cost of allowances is £1,062,000 for the coming year, an increase of £14,000.
Is Labour’s argument that they need to pay their whip more money because there is dissent in the ranks about their party’s shameful decision making nationally and locally, so the whip has more to do to keep the troops in order.
Feels slightly wrong for them to be taking money from a pot designated for a non-political role like mayor and using it to top up a political one – but then they are a party pushing people into fuel poverty and refusing to end child poverty due to the 2 child benefit cap. Nothing surprises me about them anymore.
An appalling decision to use council tax funds that could be used elsewhere to pay for a Labour whip & to diminish the mayor’s allowance (which is non political) & ceremonial.
With one Labour Councillor having defected & two resignations clearly they want to send a message to the rest of their councillors. Fair enough – but it shouldn’t be at taxpayers expense
It’s telling that Labour feel the need to increase their Chief Whip’s pay — clearly, enforcing party discipline is proving difficult.
The unpopular Labour party seems to have shifted toward populist and increasingly anti democratic direction.
It’s surprising more haven’t recognised the situation and left by now. On critical issues like crime, the economy, taxation, transport, environment, immigration, waste management, and the cost of living, Labour continues to fall short.
Increasing pay for cabinet councillors while they reduce their responsibilities is completely out of touch. The party’s actions are self-serving and lacking in honesty.
An appalling decision to use council tax funds that could be used elsewhere to pay for a Labour whip & to diminish the mayor’s allowance (which is non political) & ceremonial.
With one Labour Councillor having defected & two resignations, clearly they want to send a message to the rest of their councillors. Fair enough – but it shouldn’t be at taxpayers expense.
Will you be denouncing the Conservative chief whips in places like Croydon and Kensington/Chelsea who “use council tax funds that could be used elsewhere”?
There is no money, there is no money, there is no money. Wait there is some money for our whip! A miracle, just like turning water into wine (or gravy train).
Tony, did you read the part where the money comes from reducing the mayor’s allowance to make it cost-neutral? No new money is being created here.
Diverted from a non-political role to a utterly political one? So tax payers being them Reform voters, Tories, Greens etc are paying for a Labour whip???
I get your thought process, and it sounds intuitive, but that line of thinking would unravel a huge part of how representative democracy works.
Taxpayers of all political stripes fund council infrastructure, and that includes things like, cabinet roles; Opposition leader allowances, which are paid specifically to the largest opposition party, whether voters backed them or not; MPs’ salaries, regardless of party, are paid by everyone, even if you didn’t vote for them; and Parliamentary whips; special advisers (SpAds); and even ministerial cars are paid for by taxpayers, regardless of party preference.
Ah, the delightful world of taxpayer-funded political theatre, where everyone gets a seat, whether they want one or not. Picture this: your hard-earned cash, the very same that goes to fix potholes, fund local parks, and maybe even patch up the crumbling library, also goes to subsidize the salary of a party’s whip. Yes, a whip. A professional enforcer of political conformity, wielding power by making sure no one dares stray from the party line – because clearly, we all need to fund the person whose sole job is to force cllrs to disagree with each other more efficiently.
It’s as if you paid for a bouncer to stand at the door of your local café, making sure no one enters unless they’re properly angry about something, while your local streets remain, well, rockier than ever.
So, to recap: you’re not just paying for the potholes, but for the potholes in logic and governance.
An em dash, Americanised spellings, and a lack of nuance give it away, Jon.
1) Potholes are funded from a separate, ringfenced capital budget that comes from the National Government, not local staffing decisions. Unaffected.
2) Parks fall under general fund services, but maintenance is often covered through contracts, grants, and S106. Unaffected.
3) Libraries are part of the council’s statutory duties under national law and have protected general fund lines, often supplemented with external funding. Again, unaffected.
4) No new money was created. This reallocates existing internal resources, not diverts from frontline services.
It’s a nicely generated narrative, but it’s built on fiction.
What are you talking about Benjamin? Jon hasn’t used American spelling. See how he spells ‘theatre’. The ‘ize’ ending can be used in both British and American English (although Brits also have the option of using ‘ise’ if they prefer). And that’s not an em dash, it’s a spaced en dash.
Correct, a spaced en dash, near enough. If we’re veering into punctuation to avoid the actual point, it’s probably because I’m right. No one is typing an alt-code to write a spaced en dash instead of a hyphen.
Nothing but spin from the Labour councillors all finger-pointing (or is that just a long, pointy nose?).
They promised to tackle the cost of living crisis, then went and cut winter fuel payments and hiked our bills.
It’s been one broken promise after another on schools, congestion, the environment, illegal immigration, council tax, the cost of living, and winter payments to pensioners. No wonder you’re having to give the whip a pay rise.
Labour were awful in opposition and even worse in power.
It is political parties who should be banned from having anything to do with running Brighton and Hove.
Let them have their internal fighting at their own expense, not the public expense.
I get the frustration, Mike. When party politics descends into petty point-scoring, it’s easy to feel like we’d be better off without them. But banning political parties from running councils wouldn’t fix the problem. In fact, it might make things worse.
Parties give voters a clear sense of what candidates stand for. Without them, we’d end up with dozens of independents who might all mean well but have no shared policy framework, no manifesto, and no agreed budget strategy. That can easily lead to chaos or paralysis.
The issue isn’t parties existing in my opinion, it’s how they behave. We should absolutely demand more honesty, cooperation, and competence from elected councillors; like I challenge Cllr Lyons often. But scrapping party politics wouldn’t remove conflict, it would just make it less transparent.
Why should they be “banned”? If people don’t want councillors from political parties, they have an obvious solution. Don’t vote for them.