Stoke-on-Trent City Council launched their Mandate For Change in a blaze of glory last Wednesday, a business breakfast for 200 business leaders & stakeholders, printed brochures and a video, using the Take That track, Shine, (yes the one that is used by Morrisons supermarkets and without local lad Robbie on it).
The key points of the Mandate for Change are
- Make Stoke-on-Trent the place to bring business.
- Support and develop existing business.
- Work with people to promote independence and healthy lives.
- Make Stoke-on-Trent a great city to live in.
All excellent values, that if driven forward will make Stoke-on-Trent a great place to be again. If the bid for the North Staffordshire Enterprise Zone is successful this will be a launch pad to hopefully getting some businesses to relocate to the area and provide the much needed employment which in turn will help to regenerate the city.
The City Council have identified that there is not enough executive housing in the city and in a recent meeting of the City Renewal Overview and Scrutiny Committee they proposed that some council owned properties such as the old park depot in Longton park and Penkhull Farm could be used for conversion in to executive housing.
It is widely believed that businesses don’t want to relocate to Stoke-on-Trent because there aren’t many suitable houses for their senior managers. This is something that Stoke-on-Trent city Council know only too well as a recent Freedom of Information request has shown that the most senior officers don’t actually live in the city themselves. These are the people, who run the city and are currently making unprecedented cuts to your services, it must be quite easy making cuts to services that you don’t have to use yourself.
On the executive recruitment site for the City Council they go to great lengths to tell prospective senior officers how good the city is.
Living In Stoke
Affectionately known as “ËœThe Potteries’, owing to our world-class ceramics and rich industrial heritage, we’re famed for the warmth and creativity of our people. We’re also one of the greenest cities in the country, with one third of the City being green space.You’ll discover a living, working city with a vibrant culture and friendly people, surrounded by beautiful countryside. You’ll find retail therapy and attractions to fire your imagination and set your heart pounding. You’ll discover a city that is experiencing £multi-million investment and a remarkable transformation as we revitalise and realise the potential of our people and area. You’ll find quality education and a huge range of housing options too. Put simply, you’ll discover a City with a proud past and a bright future.
Even the Chief Executive’s wife Tracy recognised the importance of living in the city where her husband was working.
We definitely want to live in the area John covers, that is the least he can do. If he lives there, he can understand the issues there.
So how many of the top officers in the City Council from the Chief Executive, Directors & Assistant Directors live in Stoke-on-Trent, where You’ll find retail therapy and attractions to fire your imagination and set your heart pounding?
According to the response given to a Freedom of Information request only one of the 22 most senior officers in the City Council lives within the city and enjoys the benefits of the services provided by their employer. One solitary senior officer, that is less than 5%. The Chief Executive and the Directors who don’t live in the city are some of the top officers who took £1.5m in salaries and benefits between them last year.
As these officers are not living in the city are also less likely to spend any significant amount of their sizeable incomes with traders in the city other than maybe the supermarket in Stoke, the pubs near to the Civic Centre and the odd sandwich shop.
The City Council would not name which officer did live within the city citing section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information act that the information being requested relates to the individuals private life rather than their public function.
We contacted a number of councillors by E-mail to ask them, To lead the way in trying to bring new businesses to the city, should senior officers, (CEO directors & assistant directors) live in the city to help promote it?
the only one to respond at the time of publication.
Personally, I think they should. Otherwise, they are, and in some cases justifiably, open to the accusation of being patronizing hypocritical. It’s good enough for everyone else but not themselves. It would also show tremendous commitment and belief.
So do you think senior officers should live within the city they serve?
yes, absolutely they should live in the authority area they work for – and i’m surprised Stoke City Council, and all local authorities, don’t make it a condition of any job relocation package that it will only be available to them if they move to that specific authority area.
In an ideal world perhaps. I think it’s unrealistic to expect senior council officers to always live in the area they work though. Many of these officers move onwards and (usually) upwards in relatively short periods of time; should they disrupt their children’s education each time? What of elderly parents who they may want to stay close to? What of those who have a partner also in a senior role but elsewhere?
Isn’t it just a fact that the more people earn, the greater their propensity to commute?
And really, wherever people in the higher income bracket live, will they have the same life experiences as the majority of us? Sweeping generalisation I know, but they’ll be living in a nice quiet cul-de-sac and could be anywhere.
Maybe, if they live elsewhere, they can bring in fresh ideas. After all, we wouldn’t expect people who work for the BBC to only watch BBC programmes or listen to BBC radio. Would we?
Fantastic research Mike – well done!
This article is the the epitome of everything that is now wrong with this site.
A single statistic is misleading and the parochial outlook of “you must live here” is staggeringly immature.
How many of our MPs live in Stoke-on-Trent?
How many Councillors live in Stoke-on-Trent?
What is misleading about it? it is simple fact.
I didn’t say ‘you must live here’, I just find it amazing that the number is so low, I would expect maybe 40 or 50 % of officers maybe to live here.
One?
It’s not the fact that some officers live outside of the city it is just the number of them at high levels.
If they were living in the city they would be contributing to its regeneration and helping many of the local traders. Instead they are putting that money in to other cities which are maybe less deserving in the current climate.
And of our reduced Council?
Why should business relocate to Stoke when our own Council doesn’t?
The amount of work contracted out to local (city based) companies for regeneration and local traders is also comparable, as this too is not contributing to local growth as most of it is awarded to non-local firms.
For once Gary, we agree.
If I wanted to bring a business that turned over £2m a year the council would do handstands to help me locate it in the city. Yet allowing similar amounts of money to leak out of the city is acceptable..
A few years ago I heard of a scheme that allowed the council to take a tender that wasn’t the cheapest if was from a company in the city thus keeping the money within the city.
Did not Van Der Laarschot give an undertaking that he would live in the City? He lives in Stone, I believe. I can think of only one Ita O Donovan who lived in the city. She lived in Trentham. Steve Robinson ( I think of Stoke on Trent every waking moment) lived in Shrewsbury. Brian Smith, I think, lived in Hutcheater. In the past Titchener lived in Barlaston but he was Town Clerk as it was known for a number of years and prior to that Harry Naylor who lived in Endon but it those two cases they were around for a long time.
As for MPs Stross lived in Hanley, Jack Ashley in Hanford- or at least had a house there and Forrster Milton. Fisher lived at the begiining in Bakewell St, Penkhull and Stevenson lived in the City meir Park I think it was
My main beef is that many of the City Council employees slag the area and the people of the area off. I could add Mick Temple after his piece in the Sentinel which I responded to
My response on Facebook to Cllr Rosenau assertion that the contract went to the company from West Bromwich to begin the Hanley Bus Station because local people lacked the skills and that the Council were constrained to take the lowest bid
“But there is such a thing as Community Benefit clauses and which have existed for a number of years. CBCs ensure that contracts benefit local communities through training and employment. The City Council cannot claim that they no nothing about this when I asked a question of Mark Meredith in 2008. Time and Time again large projects in North Staffs have benefitted workers from outside the area. When the Cultural Quarter was being developed I was seeing vans with Atherton near Wigan on the side. RENEW was employing demolition contractors from outsie the area. Did the Tesco building employ local workers- I doubt it. What is needed is the political will. And I would question the rationality behind all this any cost benefit analysis would have to include the costs of having local workers on the dole in terms of benefits. Ironically Sandwell seem to have grasped the point”
As Bill Cawley states, John van der Laaschott gave an undertaking that he would live within the boundaries.
How does this look to potential investors when less than 5% of the senior officials choose to live where they want you to invest?
Why is it that only we “simple yokels” can see the logic in this?
Yes very true Mike, the policy is there but then the council choose to ignore it and award two large contracts to out of town contractors, New precinct/bus shelter – Realis–Birmingham, Council maintenance – Keir — Bedfordshire.
What is immature about wanting the Council to live within Stoke-on-Trent?
Every single one of them-bar none-have publicly stated their desire to live in Stoke….
“If elected”……or “If you employ me”.
The rest of them publicly state in a ‘legal document’ that they somehow fulfil the criteria to ‘legally’ put themselves forward for ‘selection and election’.
Gareth should realise that it is them that are being held to account and not immature meddlers causing trouble.
Investigations at a very high level are in progress.
Gary,
Firstly, I have not refered to Councillors and at the time I used the phrase ‘immature’ there was no reference made to them in the story either.
So please don’t try and obfuscate the point I was making or attempt to draw me into yet another one of your conspiracy-theoryesque scenarios. If you are making ‘investigations at a very high level’, you carry on, just leave me out of it. This thread is about officers.
Secondly, I think it is immature to draw an us or them attitude. The boundaries of North Staffordshire Local Authorities are very arbitrary and to suggest you have to live one side of a line is, I believe in this context, wrong.
The better data to have asked for was how many senior officers live within North Staffordshire, as that would have given indications of how much interaction there is with the City outside of a professional capacity. Although, personally, I don’t think it matters where the officers live and a fixation with it is uneccessary.
I don’t give a toss where they live either.
Where I do give a toss is when they say they will live here (and suffer like we do) get voted in, get employed…whatever…and then go live somewhere else which is probably conservant with their new found superior pay packet.
I’d vote against any liar and I’d sack anyone who lied to me in an interview.
As I said, I don’t give a toss either.
[quote=john ]yes, absolutely they should live in the authority area they work for – and i’m surprised Stoke City Council, and all local authorities, don’t make it a condition of any job relocation package that it will only be available to them if they move to that specific authority area.[/quote]
So freedom of choice goes out the window then? Tied cottages for senior management?
[quote=Mike Rawlins]It’s not the fact that some officers live outside of the city it is just the number of them at high levels.[/quote]
Have to ask ourselves why?
[quote=Mike Rawlins]If they were living in the city they would be contributing to its regeneration and helping many of the local traders. Instead they are putting that money in to other cities which are maybe less deserving in the current climate.[/quote]
Define less deserving? What if they live in N-u-L, Moorlands, even Stafford, wouldn’t they still be contributing to the local economy with Hanley as the biggest retail area for miles around. What if the city doesn’t offer the amenities their family (who one would assume accompany them) want? What if…
Again Gary, deliberatly mixing two seperate issues.
Councillors and Officers are different…
[quote=Gary Elsby]How many of our MPs live in Stoke-on-Trent?
How many Councillors live in Stoke-on-Trent?[/quote]
How many senior managers in private companies, local entrepreneurs and other well paid self-employed? OK, they don’t work for the public face of the city, but them living elsewhere would be just as detrimental to the local economy. Again, if it’s low, have to ask why?
They at least could have picked a better song, Shine is about the worst song Take That have ever done. Mind you the first album was pretty well rank to. Anyway, I’m only saying this to wind up the wife and the other girls. I’ll havec a read and pass comment later.
Yes Gareth, I am deliberately mixing all comers into the frame.
I’m doing it on purpose.
Are you now very clear that I am not trying to decieve you or anybody else?
I’ve got all of them quoted, word for word and I intend to act on it in my own time.
I intend to publicise who promised what and if they delivered on it and who lied.
Jobs, promises, quotes, delivery, quality and downright lies.
Please don’t confuse me with someone who doesn’t know what he is doing.
I know exactly what I am doing and I intend to do the lot of them.
I’ve got their signatures to their (legal) quotes and (legal) declarations.
You can disassociate this Council’s Officers from our public figures (Councillors+MPs) as is your perogative.
I’m not doing similar.
ONE, one of the buggers, and you can bet your life they are just over the Stoke on Trent – Stafford border in Trentham. True to there word, they are all a bunch of money grabbing ner-do-wells who cut the service given by this city council to the quick, but in no way wish to be subjected to the services themselves. They do not wish there children to be educated within the city, they don’t want to witness the problems in the city centre, they do not wish to have there bins emptied by there employers, in short they do not want to live hear but are all to keen to tell us they know best and run this city for us. I think it might be safe to say that the only business taking any money paid to this lot is The Glebe public house at lunch time and Tesco Hanford or Asda Wolstanton if the wife gets on the blower and asks if they can get some milk and bread on the way home. I think I have said this meny times before about this lot, collectively they are a bloody disgrace. I’ll stand up for council members and work with them, but the officers, thats a different matter, and they know it, and I’ve told one or to as well, they are expendable, they can go to hell.
[quote]So do you think senior officers should live within the city they serve?[/quote]
In an ideal world, yes! That way it’s easier for them to understand the area they serve and have certain amount of control over. However, the world is far from idea.
[quote=Paul Breeze]Personally, I think they should. Otherwise, they are, and in some cases justifiably, open to the accusation of being patronizing hypocritical. It’s good enough for everyone else but not themselves. It would show tremendous commitment and belief.[/quote]
Why are they justifiably open to accusations of being patronising and hypocritical if they don’t? It might not be good enough for everyone else, could it be a case of making do on the means available? Many factors could have been factored into deciding to live outside the area. It WOULD also show tremendous commitment and belief, that point Paul makes I agree with.
So, 21 senior council officers don’t live within the city limits? Has anyone asked why they don’t? Or are we going to get more of the same vilification of these people from the usual suspects?
Even though they live outside the city do they still live within daily commuting distance? Therefore would that mean they still shop and go out within the city, thereby still contributing to it’s economy and having contact with it’s daily life?
Are the reasons they live outside the area things that the council can rectify within it’s remit? Or is it factors outside the council’s control? If it’s the former then surely as senior council officers they should rectify these issues so they have no reason not to live within the area. The latter could include ‘environmental’ factors they have no control over.
[quote=Mike Rawlins]It is widely believed that businesses don’t want to relocate to Stoke-on-Trent because there aren’t many suitable houses for their senior managers.[/quote]
Another factor in locating investment is, would the managers locating with it want to live there? Not just senior managers. If we can find out why senior council officers don’t live here we might be able to address the above. Not just them. Where do well paid professionals like SCFC players, doctors and lawyers, senior managers with firms already here, and local business people live? If not in the city, why not?
So ideally we’d want our senior officers to live locally but for reasons, be they personal or to with the area itself, they may choose not to. I personally believe “environment factors” play their part, which will probably be seen a snobbish. However, is it the quality of the food that puts you off a breakfast in Wetherspoons, or the dozen plus people on their 3rd pint by 9 O’Clock (that’s an analogy if anyone’s confused)?
It might not be the council services they have an issue with. It could be what I describe as “environmental factors”.
Where’s the Tesco in Hanford?
There are a number of factors in this but commitment is central. I was talking to someone involved in a canal project in Middleport last summer in about 10 years he has seen about the same number of officers. I suppose it matters not really where a person lives but it suggests a lack of interest in the area that they are trying to serve. All too often the Councillors have choosen “chancers” as officers who have buggered off after a short time
Compare Stoke-on-Trent with other cities of a similar size and there is one major difference. How many “leafy” middle-class areas are there in the city? Then ask why people who earning over £50k won’t live here.
Sorry David, there isn’t one in Hanford, Trent Vale, last one before the M6 south entrance to make good there escape from somewhere they don’t want to be. Did a few shifts there a few years ago, you should see the amount if duck eggs they sell, one of the best for sails of duck eggs in the country, god knows why, they have never been able to work it out. You can bet your life we are paying them travelling time as well, for god sake.
Well Gary, I hope this crusade is as succesful as your other campaigns. I really do.
I’ve just lost my job in Stoke and have been offered a position in Manchester. Is in the civil service still.
Should I have to move there or could I keep my life in Stoke?
Just seems like that’s what you’re asking the Council Officers to do.
So the only reason a business should relocate to Stoke is because we are a low paid workforce and thick.
Our Senior Officers (and Councillors) are rich and clever.
Too clever to live among thick people and rich enough to buy expensive housing in a leafy area in the countryside.
It’s not a crusade, it is an opportunity for those in question to expalin their differences in what they say and what they do.
It also gives the legal authorities the right to act.
[quote=Gary Elsby]So the only reason a business should relocate to Stoke is because we are a low paid workforce and thick.[/quote]
Isn’t that one of the perceptions that’s putting businesses off, not attracting them? If that is the perception, is that going to attract well paid white collar work? Would companies be able to persuade their senior managers to move into the same area as the thick, low-paid workforce as you put it? Ask why Nottingham has big name players and well paid jobs in the area? Or Leeds turning into the UK’s secondary financial capital?
[quote=Gary Elsby]Our Senior Officers (and Councillors) are rich and clever.
Too clever to live among thick people and rich enough to buy expensive housing in a leafy area in the countryside.[/quote]
Again, not answering why. It’s all very griping that they live elsewhere but until it’s understood why not a great deal can be done about it. Simply crying foul all the time doesn’t change anything. Finding out why and rectifying any issues probably will, providing those issues can be rectified. There’s one issue that applies everywhere that cannot be rectified (‘Spoons breakfast analogy).
Guest, 22:50 18th July, made a very valid point. Where are the leafy areas where your professionals, white collar workers, managers, etc.. are going to want to live? Trentham? Parts of Hartshill perhaps? Also, what cultural amenities does the city provide for “white collar” type people?
Will they want to come into a town centre where every third person wanders around with a can in their hand? Or where half the male population struts around like they’ve got a rolled carpet under each armpit (OK, exaggerating about the half, but you do see plenty). Again, have to mention dog fouling and littering. Would you find these issues in Trentham? Or in one of the villages like Madeley or Alton?
I find it difficult to be critical of the senior officers until I know why they live elsewhere. If it’s council services then that’s what they’re paid to deal with and they should consider their future. If it’s personal issues (like they took the job when one the kids is halfway through GCSEs) then I’m inclined to be lenient towards them. If it’s social issues with the area then the people of the area need to stop moaning and look at themselves in the mirror (‘Spoons…).
Culturally the area is far better than it was for most of the 90s with the Cultural Quarter, Vicky Hall revamp as well as the New Vic. Its not Manchester but there are worst places of the same size
“Compare Stoke-on-Trent with other cities of a similar size and there is one major difference. How many “leafy” middle-class areas are there in the city? Then ask why people who earning over £50k won’t live here.”
Absolutely I think that is the main factor at play here rather than some general conspiracy to shun the city.
I used to have an ongoing joke with our Tory parliamentary candidate back in 2001 that you could easily spot the borough boundary if you find yourself with houses on one side of the street and fields on the other. The city boundary is specially drawn to exclude as many areas that look remotely Tory as possible, we used to say.
…well it was funny at the time in the somewhat black humour days of 2001.
But anyway, I turn to Cunninghamaster for what to me is the best point that has been made so far:
“I’ve just lost my job in Stoke and have been offered a position in Manchester. Is in the civil service still. Should I have to move there or could I keep my life in Stoke?”
And thats absolutely right. These officers may be public figures to US, but its just another job for ordinary people just like us. Why on earth SHOULD they have to move into the city just to please other people?
I find myself once again agreeing with David Perry when he says that in an ideal world they would live in the city, but that the world is not always ideal.
In principle yes it would be nice if they lived here. But none of us can point the finger and say that they MUST live here when hand on heart in their position we’d probably do precisely the same thing.
When they say they WILL live here and schol their kids in our schools and then don’t.
They are liars who conned us.
Thanks for awknowledging my comment Shaun. In an ideal world council officers would live here but it’s hard in practise.
Why should they have to live here? We want the best talent working for Stoke and if requirements state they need to live here we would be excluding possibly the best candidate. I mean where do you stop? Should the executive live on council estates where the highest proportion of council services are used?
I’m surprised no one has mentioned that our esteemed central MP doesn’t live in Stoke….
Thanks for awknowledging my comment Shaun. In an ideal world council officers would live here but it’s hard in practise.
Why should they have to live here? We want the best talent working for Stoke and if requirements state they need to live here we would be excluding possibly the best candidate. I mean where do you stop? Should the executive live on council estates where the highest proportion of council services are used?
I’m surprised no one has mentioned that our esteemed central MP doesn’t live in Stoke….
I thought that Tristram Hunt does? Is not Stockton Brook on or just inside the boundary. beside I think that there some good areas of the area. There are some attractive areas of Hartshill/Penkhull, Lightwood, Light Oaks/Norton Green. Stoke is a leafy place. The City is not all Council estaes and anyway the Council estates that do exist are not as bad as others in the UK. I lived on the Abbey and its on the edge of countryside.
It doesn’t matter so much where they live, as a few people on here have said, this is not a totalitarian state. But there should be more effort made to employ people to senior positions who’re originally from Stoke and, therefore, have an understanding of its heritage. Or at least have something in place which rigorously tests an outsider’s understanding of Stoke-on-Trent. Because this is crucial in reversing the trend of heritage destruction in this city; where people with no affiliation to the city dismiss its social and industrial history, in the same way an elephant swats a fly off its arse, as they plan the next CV enhancing / community reducing redevelopment
Turning it around a little, I live in Stoke-on-Trent but work outside. So, should I move out? (Oh dear, I’ve asked for it now, they’ll all be clamouring for me to go.) Similar to cunninghamster’s point, I did work in the city but got transferred out, it wasn’t even my choice. It doesn’t mean I also wanted to uproot my children from their schooling to go elsewhere or have the hassle of buying and selling houses again. Kate also raises other family issues that can occur. With the job insecurity people live with in current times (including at the council) even if they don’t jump they might be pushed, so how can they be expected to have any commitment to the city.
Besides even if you live in the city you can still get stick for being a ‘poshender’. I like Trentham, nothing wrong in that, I like Stoke-on-Trent.
The other thing is you know what ‘they’ are like with boundary changes. You never know, it could be you could stay exactly where you are and find you ‘move’ in or out of the city.
But I totally agree with Gary, if someone says they will live in the city, especially if they use that to help them get a job, then that shouldn’t be a lie. So if John and Tracey VDL don’t live here after what they’ve said, then we’ve every right to take them to task over it.
Besides these are council executives, that means they’ll be able to see right through the spin, after all it’s possibly part of their job to write it
leadersforstoke.co.uk
So they’ll read “industrial heritage” and conclude closed factories, read “vibrant culture” and conclude drunk and disorderly, read “surrounded by beautiful countryside” and conclude live outside the city, read “retail therapy and attractions to fire your imagination and set your heart pounding” and think now you’re just taking the p*ss, read “remarkable transformation” and conclude bulldozed, read “revitalise” and conclude going down the tubes, read “quality education” and be smart enough to look into that more closely, after all you do when it’s your children’s future at stake.
Whoops, I think I swore, I do apologise, I’ll try again:
Besides these are council executives, that means they’ll be able to see right through the spin, after all it’s possibly part of their job to write it
leadersforstoke.co.uk
So they’ll read “industrial heritage” and conclude closed factories, read “vibrant culture” and conclude drunk and disorderly, read “surrounded by beautiful countryside” and conclude live outside the city, read “retail therapy and attractions to fire your imagination and set your heart pounding” and think now you’re just taking the urine, read “remarkable transformation” and conclude bulldozed, read “revitalise” and conclude going down the tubes, read “quality education” and be smart enough to look into that more closely, after all you do when it’s your children’s future at stake.
Public figures taking the public purse should live with the public.
MPs should live in Stoke, just as they said they would. That means schooling children in Stoke.
1st home Stoke, 2nd home London.
It’s not hard is it?
The reason I remaon dogged on this issue is because a failure not to be means that they become half cocked and half hearted on fighting local issues.
This is a charge they will rigorously deny but very easy to prosecute.
They will always fall into the ‘collective’ viewpoint and ignore any local campaigns as being of the usual suspects.
Where is the MP led common assault on care home closures or school closures?
Where is the MP who said “I will stand before a bulldozer”?
If you do not live in this City you will always fail to represent this City even though you can prove you do the paperwork.
Where is the fight for our services?
“MPs should live in Stoke” “That means schooling children in Stoke.” “1st home Stoke, 2nd home London.
It’s not hard is it?”
It is actually hard. If I were an MP (which I’ve never actually tried to be) I reckon I’d more likely school my children in London and live in Stoke weekends and school holidays. Otherwise I wouldn’t get enough time to spend with my children and I think I’d miss out on that important experience in life and I’d worry about the effect on them also. Other option is don’t try to be an MP. It’s a bit easier bringing children to Stoke weekends when they’re young but as they reach teens and want more of their own life they may want to stay where their friends are.
But I fully take your point on the level of commitment to local issues. I think the important point here is honesty. Be up front with the electorate and follow through on your promises. I wouldn’t think that ought to be hard but it seems to be a difficulty for many politicians.
I think calling theses lot public figures Gary might just the stretching it a little bit. You might have a point about council members being public figures locally, and most of them do live local (apart form on or two who seem to qualify thought owning property hear). Council members are public figures, as they are the ones that represent any area, that makes them of importance. This lost frankly are not, they might think they are, but they are not. They could be got rid of and others brought in if wanted to. Personally, I’d fire them all on the spot, and the ones brought in to take up the posts would be on 2 year rolling contracts according to performance, we can get rid of a council member at an election, we can’t get rid of this lot. They themselves seem to be the one to say when they go, and do so, costing the city much in leaving when they made that many foul ups they can not hide or carry on. You can not make them live in the city they work, but you could explain to them it would look better if they did. I don’t give a stuff what they say, there is good housing within the city, its insulting to the people that live hear that they don’t think so, and its an outrage that these people will not use them or the service they as public servants give.
A MP living in London and considers Stoke to be the jobbing 2nd home will leave London on Thursday evening and live in Stoke Thursday night onwards and travel back to London for Monday afternoon.
The argument about the children at school is unworkable in Nicky’s case.
Which parents’ evenings does the MP attend and where?
Big deal that a poorly paid MP representing Stoke has to shack up in London for a few nights.
Big deal.
Count me in.
The job of an MP is to represent an area in Westminster and that’s in London, numbnuts. If they were not there, you would be about the first one yelling about it Gassa. But I’m with you on one thing, given the chance, hay! I’d be off down the smoke each Monday, with expense form in hand and get myself booked into the Holiday Inn Westminster on a Bed and Breakfast deal, skip lunch, and with the the members restraint and bars giving good deals so I hear, I’d be blown in. I can play them expense forms like a violin me, as the union have found out to there cost more them once.
People totally have the right to work and live where they want, I don’t have a problem with this concept.
I find it hypocritical that people who are supposed to be supporting the growth & regeneration of the city by saying what a great place it is and how much better it is, don’t actually live here.
I don’t expect all officers to live in the city but I would have expected the number who do to be far higher than the 5%.
Lests take Tom Smythe, the hypothetical head of press & marketing for Midfordshire FC. Do you think the chairman self made millionaire and former star striker, Barry ‘the cat’ Summerton will be happy or even allow Tom keep his season ticket for Barnchester FC a club 20 miles away?
No, he would be expected to support the club that pays his wages.
So let’s take the not so hypothetical Hardial Bhogal how often do he take his family shopping in Hanley I wonder? Hardial heads the department that is responsible for the regeneration of Hanley, has he actually used Hanley? Has he actually been there as a ‘shopper’ to see what it is really like, or has he just been whisked through on visits, with his officers?
How good would it be for the residents of Stoke-on-Trent to see the Chief Executive John vd L shopping in the Potteries Shopping Centre or walking around in Hanley at a weekend? He must be doing it somewhere so why not do it in Stoke-on-Trent and support traders in the city that pays him?
Warren, thank you for informing this blog that a MP’s place of work is in London and Parliament. I still find it amazing what yuo can learn from the internet and blogs in particular.
Part-time residents of this City OR outsiders with a foot in the door of Stoke politics have shown no comapsionate link for our services of any kind.
It just so happens that in Stoke, the entire make-up of those political positions are in the hands of those outsiders.
With you on that Mike. Your welcome Gassa, mind you, I thought you would have known this, learned person that you are, but you have to explain things to some round hear…lol.
I have been saying this for years you need to live in a place , educate your kids there ,spend your leisure £ to have real committment
As Lord Andrew Mawson says in his wonderful and inspiring books ” The Social Entrepeneur”
“We are the environments that we live in ”
He then goes on to say
” Real Change is not a soft option, it is costlky and does not come easy. It demands real personal sacrifice. It requires lifetime committment , not a government cycle ”
or in the case of many of our recent officers a few quick wins until the next job opportunity presents itself in another authority.
Sadly this is not restricted to the top people only I think if a similar request was made around other professionals at a slightly lower salary level in the local authority , education and health you would get a not disimilar picture .
As for executive housing no we do not have as many as most cities but a quick drive around Penkhull alone will show quite a few £300- £ 400k wonderful properties on the market at the moment , 5 mins from junction 15 and the A50 and the railway station 5 mins from either the best free school or the fee paying school in the area
So what is their excuse ????
I have been saying this for years you need to live in a place , educate your kids there ,spend your leisure £ to have real committment
As Lord Andrew Mawson says in his wonderful and inspiring books ” The Social Entrepeneur”
“We are the environments that we live in ”
He then goes on to say
” Real Change is not a soft option, it is costlky and does not come easy. It demands real personal sacrifice. It requires lifetime committment , not a government cycle ”
or in the case of many of our recent officers a few quick wins until the next job opportunity presents itself in another authority.
Sadly this is not restricted to the top people only I think if a similar request was made around other professionals at a slightly lower salary level in the local authority , education and health you would get a not disimilar picture .
As for executive housing no we do not have as many as most cities but a quick drive around Penkhull alone will show quite a few £300- £ 400k wonderful properties on the market at the moment , 5 mins from junction 15 and the A50 and the railway station 5 mins from either the best free school or the fee paying school in the area
So what is their excuse ????
The naivety evident in this “blog” is laughable. So what did you expect? It’s very similar to those who express surprise when they discover that politicians and vociferous members of the Guardian reading, chattering classes of “London” ie. the most politically correct and pro-immigration, live NOWHERE near those areas with a high proportion of ethnic minorities. They need at least a Waitrose in order to pop in and grab a bottle of Chardonnay for their dinner party in aid of Kenyan orphans etc.
If you were raking in at least £50,000 p.a. would you live in Tunstall? When “senior” officers and politicians speak it is ALL RHETORIC.
A cynic is a term used by an optimist to describe a realist.
Get real people.
Mike, your story has made the Sentinel http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Senior-staff-helped-live-outside-city/story-13062390-detail/story.html
Andy, why Tunstall in particular?
[quote=Andy]The naivety evident in this “blog” is laughable. So what did you expect? [/quote]
I thought the same. Does nobody get that people on those sort of salaries don’t want to live in a “chav town”.
[quote=Andy]It’s very similar to those who express surprise when they discover that politicians and vociferous members of the Guardian reading, chattering classes of “London” ie. the most politically correct and pro-immigration, live NOWHERE near those areas with a high proportion of ethnic minorities. They need at least a Waitrose in order to pop in and grab a bottle of Chardonnay for their dinner party in aid of Kenyan orphans etc.[/quote]
I take it you’ve never lived in Bayswater, Holland Park, Notting Hill, South Kensington, or the less affluent but even more racially diverse area of Harrow?
[quote=Andy]If you were raking in at least £50,000 p.a. would you live in Tunstall? [/quote]
Or anywhere else populated by working class people? I mean, what a liberty, on a fat wad and being expected to live near proles. Crikey, imagine my kids catching nits, talking all scummy, going to a school where the rest don’t behave nor care, where girls get knocked up at 13, etc….
[quote=Andy]A cynic is a term used by an optimist to describe a realist.
Get real people.[/quote]
You first, it’s class, not race.
‘cos it’s got some Asians living there…
There’s an Andy, Tunstall posting on the Sentinel who’s always trying to make out everything’s racial. In this case, that’s far from the truth and the fact his comments about London have exposed his own naivety and raised serious doubts in my mind that he’s never been outside the area. Certainly not been to London… Leicester… Nottingham… Sheffield… oh hang on, but these are all cities with sizeable MIDDLE-CLASS populations, not an overwhelmingly WORKING-CLASS population, like …erm… Stoke.
Firstly, your comment :
“There’s an Andy, Tunstall posting on the Sentinel who’s always trying to make out everything’s racial. In this case, that’s far from the truth and the fact his comments about London have exposed his own naivety……”
No, I’m not trying to make out that EVERYTHING is racial. I’m trying to get people to WAKE up about a particular POLITICALLY ORGANISED, AGGRESSIVE RELIGION!!!!
I have just seen a report on the RT freeview channel that would never be aired at all on the left-wing biased BBC. That’s the BBC that has, I believe, an undercurrent of anti-semitism running through it’s quite pro-muslim agenda. The RT report showed :
* Squads of self-styled Muslim vigilantes are now “patrolling” the streets of “their” London Boroughs enforcing Sharia Law. They are very busy putting up mass produced signs stating “Sharia Law Enforcement Zones”. On the report you can clearly see the “Cleric” (or whatever the religious fascist is..) Anjem Choudary holding court flanked by several of his henchmen. He is dictating to about a dozen other fanatics about how they are going to establish a religious Emirate in London and across the “crusader” capitals of Europe. I presume several of his friends were the ones burning poppies last year.
Being so naive as I am about London I bow to your superior knowledge. What a fantastic place it is to live – if you are a Russian oligarch, a Chinese investor or one of the Muslim Brotherhood of Anjem Choudary’s religious/political/conversion.
ps. there were a few “white” faces amongst the Sharia congregation. Proof that fanatical religious brainwashing is just as effective as anything the Nazis could put into operation with their “Hitler Youth”.
Andy, the best of luck pointing out the obvious to the blind.
The Sentinel says:
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/15-council-officers-paid-relocate-choose-live/story-13062390-detail/story.html
that the council actually pays people to live a distance from the city and commute to work!
“Stoke-on-Trent City Council said it also offers a commuter allowance to anyone who lives a “reasonable distance”, 25 miles or more, from the city.”
I’ve never heard of people in most ‘normal’ jobs getting paid for their journey to and from work.
They can get up to £5,000! And at the same time they impose savage cuts on the city affecting those of us who actually live here. As well as the officers, councillors living outside the city also preside over decisions that don’t affect where they live… but then the electorate chose to elect them instead of others living locally.
Incredible!
Or those who lived outside the 6 towns!!!!!
[quote=Nicky Davis]I’ve never heard of people in most ‘normal’ jobs getting paid for their journey to and from work.[/quote]
I take it you’ve not worked in London?
To those advocating that Stoke-on-Trent should be more like London. Really? Would that be Tottenham? Enfield? Or maybe Brixton?
Notice how the BBC still dare not show what is really happening in the crowded multicultural utopia that is “our” capital. It’s deliberate suppression of facts regarding the sharia law zones. The BBC agenda – question it! Ask why their news programmes are presented a certain way with certain presenters. Open your eyes to the PC agenda.
For a different un-pc view (truth):
http://rt.com/news/sharia-law-conquer-london/
I noticed how for quite some time the BBC were reporting a “disturbance” in Tottenham. Only AFTER Sky news were reporting the RIOT did the Corporation change it’s wording. Things got a bit OTT did they?
Also, take a good look at footage and just see who exactly were smashing up the parked police car that was caught on camera close up.
When are people going to realise that London is a separate entity to the rest of Britain. A different country – HUGE population, massively self-important (Guardian/Politico Chattering classes), large illegal immigrant problems, big congestion problems (only ever going to get worse), too expensive and the home of the biggest gang of crooks in the country – 650 pension/priviledge protected MP’s. Of course some of our failed politicians have already got places stitched up aboard the EU GRAVY SHIP a la Neil & Glenys Kinnock. They have made millions out of sailing on the good ship EU.
The future of Stoke-on-Trent does not lie in mimicking a failed state. Stop immigration, stop pandering to divisive religious sects and stop the PC discrimination against anyone who isn’t on the list of protected species. Start by improving the lives of the majority even if they live in those areas that are “hideously white” (Guardian phrase). By promoting FATHERS, MEN as BREADWINNERS and those whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers actually fought for this country. A country not to be turned into a dumping ground for the world’s problems.
It’s simple really, Stoke doesn’t need a Black Lesbian/Gay Community Project Facilitation Officer OR a Muslim Outreach Protection Worker, it needs JCB, BENTLEY, NISSAN, BUSINESS, ENGINEERING, PRIVATE SECTOR COMMERCIAL JOBS etc. etc. NOT Public Sector office jobs created for PC purposes for mainly women and ethnic minorities to fill PC quotas.
[quote=Andy]To those advocating that Stoke-on-Trent should be more like London. Really? Would that be Tottenham? Enfield? Or maybe Brixton?
Notice how the BBC still dare not show what is really happening in the crowded multicultural utopia that is “our” capital. It’s deliberate suppression of facts regarding the sharia law zones. The BBC agenda – question it! Ask why their news programmes are presented a certain way with certain presenters. [/quote]
Really? Is that why they show exactly what you say they don’t on the news? Have to say Andy, I think you’re a bit of an obssessive tit. Not sure anyone has advocated S-o-T being more like London. If you’re insinuating that it’s only minorities that have taken part in said riots, then it’s YOU that needs to open YOUR eyes!!
That’s right I’ve not worked in London. Maybe this practice is more commonplace than I’m aware of.