More money and power for Hackney Mayor?

Mayor Pipe: "Committed to leading the Labour admininistration in the borough in which I live." Photograph: Hackney Council
Cash. As you may have noticed, there is a lack of it. And Eric Pickles, secretary of state for communities and local government, says that this means “bloated” councils should be looking at making savings.
Could that include combining the roles of elected mayor and chief executive? For some councils, the answer appears to be yes. Last month respected political blogger Iain Dale flagged up a story from Rugby about the local council leader in that far-flung borough taking over as chief executive of the council in addition to continuing in his role as leader.
The move was praised by Pickles. Dale pointed out that there were problems with combining the two roles; he said it would be akin to Jim Hacker, the prime minister in TV comedy Yes, Prime Minister, taking over the role of Sir Humphrey – the senior civil servant in the political show. “Leading a council and being its chief executive are two very different roles,” he writes. “And although I have never been a councillor I just cannot see how it would work.”
For an example of how those in power have managed to move seemlessly from one role to another, look to Russia, where Vladimir Putin was first President and then became Prime Minister.
But could any of this happen in Hackney? In an interview with top London blogger Blood and Property earlier this year, the leader of Hackney Council, Mayor Jules Pipe, was asked what he might like to do in the future, jobs-wise.
He ruled out standing for a parliamentary seat, and said he was also not interested in standing for the European Parliament, the London Assembly or the London mayoralty. But he said he was “committed to leading the Labour admininistration in the borough in which I live”.
Might this mean combining his current role with that of chief executive? The very prospect of having more power and a bigger salary might seem attractive, but some other future arrangement might work better for the mayor, perhaps with some kind of deputy role in the mix.
In light of Pickles’ initiative, the Hackney Citizen asked the council if there were plans to combine the roles of council leader and chief executive. The council replied that there were no such plans. However, they also said that they were following the national debate with interest.
I thought that were two separate full-time jobs – at least that’s what Hackney Labour said when explaining why Boff’s Mayoral pay-cut proposal was “bonkers”.
They can’t even keep up with their own lies.
This article is hilarious. The title of the piece should be ‘Hackney Labour takes blame for Tory proposal’.
Oh, and Kris, Boff’s Mayoral ‘pay-cut’ was bonkers because it was gesture politics. Very few people know that the only reason Boff offered to do the Mayor’s job for nothing was because, as a London Assembly Member earning £55,000 a year, the senior salary review body prevents him from taking any more than £15,000 for an additional in any case. Classic ‘sleight of hand stuff’: “I’m not going to take a salary that, in large part, I’m legally prohibited from taking” – well done Andrew, you really are one of the people.
If Mr Boff wants to make a genuine gesture, perhaps he would like give £40,000 of his London Assembly Member’s salary back to the taxpayer? This would leave him with £15,000 – roughly the average salary in Hackney.
Here, Spirit Leveller, you work in local government. Why don’t YOU take a pay cut (down to £15K) while were all bsing?
So can we take it that you’re all for the consolidation of power and cash in Jules’s hands?
Speaking of “sleight of hand”, up until May, these were two, entirely separate FT jobs. What’s changed?
Keeping it real in Hackney.
Spirit Leveller
as a London Assembly Member earning £55,000 a year
The £55,000 figure is if I had chosen to take up all the benefits, which I chose not to do.
http://www.london.gov.uk/profile/andrew-boff/expenses
the senior salary review body prevents him from taking any more than £15,000 for an additional in any case.
Not the case. This applies to MPs only.
I do not in the least question your honesty when you say that you believe that Mayor’s should be a paid position. Why do you question mine just because I hold the contrary view?
Not everyone is a venal breadhead.
Kris, as a point of clarity, I would vehemently oppose the splicing together of the Mayor and Chief Executive’s role. They are two distinct occupations, which require entirely different skills. The head of paid service has apolitical and objective obligations that an elected Mayor should not. Such a system would erode confidence in local government and, I suspect, tend towards all kinds of corruption.
Moreover, it is amazing that, despite nothing but the flimsy ‘evidence’ produced by this article to go on, you have the temerity to imply that the “consolidation of power and cash in Jules’s hands” is a) a Labour proposal, when it is the intention of the Tory government to splice together the Chief Exec/Mayor roles; and b) Likely to be anything more than a money-saving exercise in any case – what point would there be of merely combining the two salaries?
I earn just under £30,000 per year. This puts me at about £1000 above the national average salary and almost £10,000 below the London average. Adjusted for inflation, I am unlikely to ever earn more. Having previously worked in a variety of minimum wage jobs I am fully aware of the difficulties associated with low pay caused, in large part, by pay inequality and a regressive taxation system. I do not plan to live on £15,000 per year in London, as this would not even cover the cost of my rent.
Unlike Andrew Boff, however, I have never claimed that I could do a full time job for nothing; particularly not for the purposes of electioneering.
The point about Boff reducing his salary is an illustrative one. He is a master of “hair-shirtism” and, yet, receives £55,000 per year for a job with no specific time or output requirements (giving him a higher income than 98% of the population). If he truly is dedicated, as an elected official, to providing the taxpayer with value for money, he should take a significant cut to his pay; something I am certain he could afford to do. This would also provide him with him the opportunity to experience the kind of pay inequality that he is such an advocate of in London (see July MQT).
Rather than make political capital from faux sacrifice it would have been far more credible if Boff had have said ‘the job of a London Assembly Member and the job of Mayor of Hackney are full time positions. One person alone cannot dispense with the duties of both. If I am elected as Mayor of Hackney I will step down from my position as an Assembly Member’. Would you not agree with this?
Right then, since I have answered your questions, perhaps you would be so kind as to address the central point of my initial post?
Is it dishonest of the Hackney Citizen to implicate the Labour Party in a Tory proposal to splice together Mayoral and Chief Executive roles when there is no evidence to support this?
What a load of garbage.
Following “with interest” now becomes speculation that Hackney would combine such a role? Clutching at straws Hackney Citizen and undermines anything that now emerges from this rag in the future.
And as for Kris – well they are two seperate jobs and nobody is wanting to merge them, certainly not anyone in the council. So your v odd ongoing vendetta and pro-Boffism is yet again shown up to be the rantings of a person who doesn’t know what’s going on.
As for Boffy – so you don’t claim your just-shy-of £55k a year salary? In the interests of disclosure..why not declare all your income for the past three years? Just so we can understand how you can make the hackney Mayor an income-free area..
Bet you won’t though, eh?!
Come on Hackney Citizen. Your are refering back to a quote from another blogger- earlier in the year and retrospectively re-interpreting this in the light of Tory policy. You are then twisting an anodine statement from a press office to mean far more than it is intended too, and using this quote, out of context, in a headline. What happened to journalistic standards and codes of practice? When did spurious (albeit amusing) speculation become worthy of being called news? How are residents like me meant to take you seriously, and how will you maintain a constructive dialogue with those from whom you request information, including politicians and Council officers, if the information they supply can be so misconstrued!
Dear Anon – Bet I will!
My only earnings are from the assembly and these are in the public domain. The year before I was elected was probably about £30K. You’re welcome to see my pre assembly records but only if you stop being anon.eh?!
SL
I’m sure there was a point buried underneath your many comments.
Dalston Lover writes: “How will you maintain a constructive dialogue with those from whom you request information, including politicians and Council officers, if the information they supply can be so misconstrued!”
That’s true! Polly and her cohorts in the press office have a nasty habit of freezing out journalists who fail to tow the sycophantic line with our Blessed Leader, Saint Julian of Victoria Park.