The point about cronyism is not unreasonable, but as to the rest - councillors are not paid a salary or employed as such, a combined household allowance to cover expenses of around £65k, for stressful public-facing roles hardly seems offensive - after expenses a lot of that won't be pocketed. MM I'm fairly certain doesn't make enough to pay full time employees or really provide a full living for the owners. Combined, plus other interests - well, that's a lifestyle. But the article appears to be attempting to draw an incompatibility between public service and private (very small) business ownership and if one has even some of the details, that's pretty laughable.
I do like Private Eye but that article is a bit of a miss IMO.