The full fall-out for city's worst cuts in history

Daily Echo: Council workers protest over cuts. Council workers protest over cuts.

Southampton is today reeling from the worst cuts in its history.

Three hundred jobs will be axed and services slashed in Southampton’s deepest ever council budget cuts.

Bosses last night confirmed plans for record job losses, cuts to services and hikes in charges that will slash £20m from the council’s budget black hole next year.

But where will the axe fall and who is to blame?

CLICK HERE FOR  FULL STORY, ANALYSIS AND BREAKDOWN OF THE CUTS

 

Comments (97)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:12am Tue 13 Nov 12

St Retford says...

A lot of these cuts can be reversed if you pick a cause you care about focus on it.

Across the country councils are slashing Surestart services, for example, and local campaigners are forcing u-turns all over the shop by questioning technicalities like the legality of the consultation process. In the age of social media this has never been easier.

New Labour has a lot to answer for but Surestart isn't one of them. Don't accept any of these cuts are set in stone. Get off your backsides and get organised and you'll be surprised what you can do.
A lot of these cuts can be reversed if you pick a cause you care about focus on it. Across the country councils are slashing Surestart services, for example, and local campaigners are forcing u-turns all over the shop by questioning technicalities like the legality of the consultation process. In the age of social media this has never been easier. New Labour has a lot to answer for but Surestart isn't one of them. Don't accept any of these cuts are set in stone. Get off your backsides and get organised and you'll be surprised what you can do. St Retford

8:47am Tue 13 Nov 12

FoysCornerBoy says...

The cuts being forced on Councils up and down the country by central government spell the end of local government as we know it.

The Local Government Association calculates that by 2020 Councils in England will only be able to fund waste collection and social care for vulnerable children and adults. These services will consume 90% of Council budgets; just about everything else - libraries, swimming pools, parks, sure start centres, museums, youth clubs, welfare advice etc. - will go.

Unless the funding formula for local government changes councils like Southampton will be confronted with this 'graph of doom'.

Despite the rhetoric on 'localism' and the 'big society' this government appears hell-bent on the destruction of local government. The cuts in Southampton are a taste of what's to come.

Its important for local citizens to be aware of what is happening and why. Hopefully they can then be prepared to take action to resist this unprecedented assault on local democracy by central government.
The cuts being forced on Councils up and down the country by central government spell the end of local government as we know it. The Local Government Association calculates that by 2020 Councils in England will only be able to fund waste collection and social care for vulnerable children and adults. These services will consume 90% of Council budgets; just about everything else - libraries, swimming pools, parks, sure start centres, museums, youth clubs, welfare advice etc. - will go. Unless the funding formula for local government changes councils like Southampton will be confronted with this 'graph of doom'. Despite the rhetoric on 'localism' and the 'big society' this government appears hell-bent on the destruction of local government. The cuts in Southampton are a taste of what's to come. Its important for local citizens to be aware of what is happening and why. Hopefully they can then be prepared to take action to resist this unprecedented assault on local democracy by central government. FoysCornerBoy

8:50am Tue 13 Nov 12

Lone Ranger. says...

After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs.
.
The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council.
.
What mugs.
.
Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council.
.
Shameful.
.
Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse.
.
The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it.
.
I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long.
.
After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. . Lone Ranger.

9:21am Tue 13 Nov 12

elvisimo says...

Anyone who thinks things would be different under either Labour or Tory is a bit naive or living 20 years ago. They all have the same pot of money and the only difference is one of personalities.

Unless they grow money trees - this will just continue.
Anyone who thinks things would be different under either Labour or Tory is a bit naive or living 20 years ago. They all have the same pot of money and the only difference is one of personalities. Unless they grow money trees - this will just continue. elvisimo

9:22am Tue 13 Nov 12

sfby says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .
Lactivating????
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]Lactivating???? sfby

9:53am Tue 13 Nov 12

Shoong says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs.
.
The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council.
.
What mugs.
.
Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council.
.
Shameful.
.
Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse.
.
The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it.
.
I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long.
.
'Lactivating'?

I think you are taking it the wrong way - I don't think anyone is 'celebrating' job losses. Not even the most hard nosed of us want to see that. It does happen in the private sector as well you know - I was informed at the start of this month that my job is being moved to India and I've got a month to find another job!

However, there are those who feel that it's necessary - don't confuse that with celebrating.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]'Lactivating'? I think you are taking it the wrong way - I don't think anyone is 'celebrating' job losses. Not even the most hard nosed of us want to see that. It does happen in the private sector as well you know - I was informed at the start of this month that my job is being moved to India and I've got a month to find another job! However, there are those who feel that it's necessary - don't confuse that with celebrating. Shoong

9:58am Tue 13 Nov 12

Plum Pudding says...

sfby wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .
Lactivating????
Going by the Latin roots, I can only think it refers to breasts leaking milk, probably far more graphic than "salivating"... Unfortunately I now cannot get the image of elderly Tory matrons out of my head....

Bitty? Bitty?

I doubts shall be having my daily Ovaltine now, but rather seek oblivion in whatever is on special at the local shop! I feel damaged!
[quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]Lactivating????[/p][/quote]Going by the Latin roots, I can only think it refers to breasts leaking milk, probably far more graphic than "salivating"... Unfortunately I now cannot get the image of elderly Tory matrons out of my head.... Bitty? Bitty? I doubts shall be having my daily Ovaltine now, but rather seek oblivion in whatever is on special at the local shop! I feel damaged! Plum Pudding

9:59am Tue 13 Nov 12

The Grinch says...

As I commented on another post and in conjunction with some of the comments made here, there is only so much money in the 'pot' and the sad reality is that the Council is an archaic organisation that needs modernising, updating and stripping of huge sections of 'dead wood'. Believe me, there are comparatively high salaries being paid to staff and areas that probably add little value.

Outsourcing doesn't work and should never be used for the provision of public services. A more streamlined, agile, modern and effective Council would be able to run many of the outsourced services - without of course the profit angle that is required in private enterprise.

In today's world archaic councils are doomed and as FoysCornerBoy comments above, the future is bleak.

A new business model is required.

The answer definitely is NOT to sell the art to raise more money to plough into an outdated organisation.

I agree that the art should be sold as it serves no purpose locked up in a store room, but the money should absolutely not then be fed back into a failed system. Remodel the system, reassess the workforce, dump outdated services and then sell the art to invest in the new way forward.

If this doesn't happen then there will continue to be job losses, cuts and services withdrawn in a 'trickle' effect over the coming months and years. Unfortunately it is likely that the cuts will come in staff and areas of least resistence rather than staff and areas where it is merited. The pragmatic view is surely now to make even tougher decisions for the greater long term good.
As I commented on another post and in conjunction with some of the comments made here, there is only so much money in the 'pot' and the sad reality is that the Council is an archaic organisation that needs modernising, updating and stripping of huge sections of 'dead wood'. Believe me, there are comparatively high salaries being paid to staff and areas that probably add little value. Outsourcing doesn't work and should never be used for the provision of public services. A more streamlined, agile, modern and effective Council would be able to run many of the outsourced services - without of course the profit angle that is required in private enterprise. In today's world archaic councils are doomed and as FoysCornerBoy comments above, the future is bleak. A new business model is required. The answer definitely is NOT to sell the art to raise more money to plough into an outdated organisation. I agree that the art should be sold as it serves no purpose locked up in a store room, but the money should absolutely not then be fed back into a failed system. Remodel the system, reassess the workforce, dump outdated services and then sell the art to invest in the new way forward. If this doesn't happen then there will continue to be job losses, cuts and services withdrawn in a 'trickle' effect over the coming months and years. Unfortunately it is likely that the cuts will come in staff and areas of least resistence rather than staff and areas where it is merited. The pragmatic view is surely now to make even tougher decisions for the greater long term good. The Grinch

10:03am Tue 13 Nov 12

St Retford says...

elvisimo wrote:
Anyone who thinks things would be different under either Labour or Tory is a bit naive or living 20 years ago. They all have the same pot of money and the only difference is one of personalities.

Unless they grow money trees - this will just continue.
They tried the money tree thing already. It's called 'quantitative easing' - the government prints loads of money and gives it to the banks which they then spend on their own bonuses.

Well done everyone.

Anyway, I think things are about to fall apart big time for the tories. The more I read about the North Wales paedophile ring and the people involved in the cover up the more I think this is a government that will be brought down by scandal and won't be allowed back any time soon.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: Anyone who thinks things would be different under either Labour or Tory is a bit naive or living 20 years ago. They all have the same pot of money and the only difference is one of personalities. Unless they grow money trees - this will just continue.[/p][/quote]They tried the money tree thing already. It's called 'quantitative easing' - the government prints loads of money and gives it to the banks which they then spend on their own bonuses. Well done everyone. Anyway, I think things are about to fall apart big time for the tories. The more I read about the North Wales paedophile ring and the people involved in the cover up the more I think this is a government that will be brought down by scandal and won't be allowed back any time soon. St Retford

10:06am Tue 13 Nov 12

Shoong says...

St Retford wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
Anyone who thinks things would be different under either Labour or Tory is a bit naive or living 20 years ago. They all have the same pot of money and the only difference is one of personalities.

Unless they grow money trees - this will just continue.
They tried the money tree thing already. It's called 'quantitative easing' - the government prints loads of money and gives it to the banks which they then spend on their own bonuses.

Well done everyone.

Anyway, I think things are about to fall apart big time for the tories. The more I read about the North Wales paedophile ring and the people involved in the cover up the more I think this is a government that will be brought down by scandal and won't be allowed back any time soon.
Great, just when you think it couldn't get any worse...
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: Anyone who thinks things would be different under either Labour or Tory is a bit naive or living 20 years ago. They all have the same pot of money and the only difference is one of personalities. Unless they grow money trees - this will just continue.[/p][/quote]They tried the money tree thing already. It's called 'quantitative easing' - the government prints loads of money and gives it to the banks which they then spend on their own bonuses. Well done everyone. Anyway, I think things are about to fall apart big time for the tories. The more I read about the North Wales paedophile ring and the people involved in the cover up the more I think this is a government that will be brought down by scandal and won't be allowed back any time soon.[/p][/quote]Great, just when you think it couldn't get any worse... Shoong

10:09am Tue 13 Nov 12

Plum Pudding says...

We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services.

If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...
We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services. If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be... Plum Pudding

10:24am Tue 13 Nov 12

miltonarcher says...

Unfortunately we are all now suffering the effects of the last Labour administration and the huge deficit they left behind. Quite funny to hear Ed Balls lecturing the current lot on how to run the economy when he was directly involved with Gordon Clown, confirmed as the most incompetent Prime Minister ever.
Unfortunately we are all now suffering the effects of the last Labour administration and the huge deficit they left behind. Quite funny to hear Ed Balls lecturing the current lot on how to run the economy when he was directly involved with Gordon Clown, confirmed as the most incompetent Prime Minister ever. miltonarcher

10:38am Tue 13 Nov 12

Torchie1 says...

Plum Pudding wrote:
We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services.

If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...
I live behind the old 'Iron Curtain' border and am surrounded by people who endured the alternative to democracy. No system is perfect but what you have is infinitely better than other systems that have been tried in the past. As the saying goes 'be careful what you wish for'.
[quote][p][bold]Plum Pudding[/bold] wrote: We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services. If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...[/p][/quote]I live behind the old 'Iron Curtain' border and am surrounded by people who endured the alternative to democracy. No system is perfect but what you have is infinitely better than other systems that have been tried in the past. As the saying goes 'be careful what you wish for'. Torchie1

10:39am Tue 13 Nov 12

Linesman says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Unfortunately we are all now suffering the effects of the last Labour administration and the huge deficit they left behind. Quite funny to hear Ed Balls lecturing the current lot on how to run the economy when he was directly involved with Gordon Clown, confirmed as the most incompetent Prime Minister ever.
miltonarcher. Can you remind me what alternative policy the Tories and LibDems proposed when the Labour Government spent money to bail out banks, building societies and also the local councils that invested their money in Icelandic banks that went bust?

No?

That is because they offered no alternative.

The government took that action to prevent people who had a morgage having their houses reposessed and savers losing their savings.

It also ensured that those local councils were able to pay their staff instead of sacking them.

Presumably, you would have preferred the government to have done nothing?
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately we are all now suffering the effects of the last Labour administration and the huge deficit they left behind. Quite funny to hear Ed Balls lecturing the current lot on how to run the economy when he was directly involved with Gordon Clown, confirmed as the most incompetent Prime Minister ever.[/p][/quote]miltonarcher. Can you remind me what alternative policy the Tories and LibDems proposed when the Labour Government spent money to bail out banks, building societies and also the local councils that invested their money in Icelandic banks that went bust? No? That is because they offered no alternative. The government took that action to prevent people who had a morgage having their houses reposessed and savers losing their savings. It also ensured that those local councils were able to pay their staff instead of sacking them. Presumably, you would have preferred the government to have done nothing? Linesman

10:56am Tue 13 Nov 12

FoysCornerBoy says...

Shoong wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs.
.
The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council.
.
What mugs.
.
Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council.
.
Shameful.
.
Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse.
.
The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it.
.
I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long.
.
'Lactivating'?

I think you are taking it the wrong way - I don't think anyone is 'celebrating' job losses. Not even the most hard nosed of us want to see that. It does happen in the private sector as well you know - I was informed at the start of this month that my job is being moved to India and I've got a month to find another job!

However, there are those who feel that it's necessary - don't confuse that with celebrating.
There may be one or two conservatives who are genuinely concerned about the human impact of the cuts they are implementing. I'm afraid, however, that in Southampton these appear to be outnumbered by other conservatives - many of whom post here - who are positively gleeful about the unrelenting assault on publicly-funded services.

They can't wait to finish what Margaret Thatcher started and - sadly - elements of 'New Labour' and Orange Book liberal democrats perpetuate.

These people represent a minority of public opinion. It's a shame that the majority of us are insufficiently organised to be able to coordinate an effective alternative.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]'Lactivating'? I think you are taking it the wrong way - I don't think anyone is 'celebrating' job losses. Not even the most hard nosed of us want to see that. It does happen in the private sector as well you know - I was informed at the start of this month that my job is being moved to India and I've got a month to find another job! However, there are those who feel that it's necessary - don't confuse that with celebrating.[/p][/quote]There may be one or two conservatives who are genuinely concerned about the human impact of the cuts they are implementing. I'm afraid, however, that in Southampton these appear to be outnumbered by other conservatives - many of whom post here - who are positively gleeful about the unrelenting assault on publicly-funded services. They can't wait to finish what Margaret Thatcher started and - sadly - elements of 'New Labour' and Orange Book liberal democrats perpetuate. These people represent a minority of public opinion. It's a shame that the majority of us are insufficiently organised to be able to coordinate an effective alternative. FoysCornerBoy

11:04am Tue 13 Nov 12

Over the Edge says...

Linesman wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Unfortunately we are all now suffering the effects of the last Labour administration and the huge deficit they left behind. Quite funny to hear Ed Balls lecturing the current lot on how to run the economy when he was directly involved with Gordon Clown, confirmed as the most incompetent Prime Minister ever.
miltonarcher. Can you remind me what alternative policy the Tories and LibDems proposed when the Labour Government spent money to bail out banks, building societies and also the local councils that invested their money in Icelandic banks that went bust?

No?

That is because they offered no alternative.

The government took that action to prevent people who had a morgage having their houses reposessed and savers losing their savings.

It also ensured that those local councils were able to pay their staff instead of sacking them.

Presumably, you would have preferred the government to have done nothing?
I don't think he gets it Lino,,,,

The Lib Dem and Tories fully supported Gordon Brown's economical policy when they were in opposition, so you can't blame Brown,

A question for you miltonarcher,,,,,,Wh
y are countries in Europe such as Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland and Portugal so skint? Did they follow Gordon Brown's economical policy as well?

Are their countries financial meltdown due the Gordon Brown, what about the USA's financial problems, are they his fault too?

The world's economy is meltdown (apart one or two Asian countries) I suppose that's Gordon Brown's fault.

The Tories have lead this country for 2 years and done nothing, local nationally or Globally to improve our financial position, mind you the bankers worldwide are still coining it in for the their shareholders, maybe you look towards them instead.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately we are all now suffering the effects of the last Labour administration and the huge deficit they left behind. Quite funny to hear Ed Balls lecturing the current lot on how to run the economy when he was directly involved with Gordon Clown, confirmed as the most incompetent Prime Minister ever.[/p][/quote]miltonarcher. Can you remind me what alternative policy the Tories and LibDems proposed when the Labour Government spent money to bail out banks, building societies and also the local councils that invested their money in Icelandic banks that went bust? No? That is because they offered no alternative. The government took that action to prevent people who had a morgage having their houses reposessed and savers losing their savings. It also ensured that those local councils were able to pay their staff instead of sacking them. Presumably, you would have preferred the government to have done nothing?[/p][/quote]I don't think he gets it Lino,,,, The Lib Dem and Tories fully supported Gordon Brown's economical policy when they were in opposition, so you can't blame Brown, A question for you miltonarcher,,,,,,Wh y are countries in Europe such as Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland and Portugal so skint? Did they follow Gordon Brown's economical policy as well? Are their countries financial meltdown due the Gordon Brown, what about the USA's financial problems, are they his fault too? The world's economy is meltdown (apart one or two Asian countries) I suppose that's Gordon Brown's fault. The Tories have lead this country for 2 years and done nothing, local nationally or Globally to improve our financial position, mind you the bankers worldwide are still coining it in for the their shareholders, maybe you look towards them instead. Over the Edge

11:12am Tue 13 Nov 12

ohec says...

Plum Pudding wrote:
We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services.

If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...
I am afraid you are right democracy went out of the window a long time back both at local and central government levels, it no longer matters what the masses want it is what we are told we want, we the ordinary uneducated have been telling successive governments about the mass immigration and the problems it causes but know we are told that we need all of these immigrants.
The majority of people want a referendum on the E.U. to my mind i think the majority want out and to reclaim our sovereignty, but in or out we want that choice but we are denied that choice by all major parties. Local councils are being stitched up by the thieving lying parasites we call M.Ps who's first and only interest is lining their own pockets. Good idea that Dave cut the councils budgets and let them take all the flack,it doesn't take a genius to see that the current economic policies are not working we are just slipping deeper into the mire but just like stubborn children they won't admit they are wrong. Create jobs by investing in infrastructure houses etc then those working go out and spend their wages creating more work, thats how it works is it really that difficult??
[quote][p][bold]Plum Pudding[/bold] wrote: We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services. If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...[/p][/quote]I am afraid you are right democracy went out of the window a long time back both at local and central government levels, it no longer matters what the masses want it is what we are told we want, we the ordinary uneducated have been telling successive governments about the mass immigration and the problems it causes but know we are told that we need all of these immigrants. The majority of people want a referendum on the E.U. to my mind i think the majority want out and to reclaim our sovereignty, but in or out we want that choice but we are denied that choice by all major parties. Local councils are being stitched up by the thieving lying parasites we call M.Ps who's first and only interest is lining their own pockets. Good idea that Dave cut the councils budgets and let them take all the flack,it doesn't take a genius to see that the current economic policies are not working we are just slipping deeper into the mire but just like stubborn children they won't admit they are wrong. Create jobs by investing in infrastructure houses etc then those working go out and spend their wages creating more work, thats how it works is it really that difficult?? ohec

11:19am Tue 13 Nov 12

loosehead says...

Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million?
What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies?
They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council.
It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in?
It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections.
It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs.
How not to lose support? I know blame the Government?
this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox.
with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole.
I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts.
Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her?
Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?
Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million? loosehead

11:22am Tue 13 Nov 12

Rockhopper says...

Who is to blame?
Well there is no doubt SCC is over staffed at supervisor/middle-ma
nager level.
Many of these staff attempt to justify their existence with tasks
a lower paid clerical/admin worker could carry out eg.allocating/checki
ng work.
The culture at SCC has allowed more and more supervisor/manager positions to be created at the expense of frontline staff.
At the moment the whole business structure is flawed.
SCC need to remove the costly back office functions and retain key frontline services where staff actually serve the public.
So SCC itself is to blame for these redundancies in allowing this staffing situation to develop over many years.
Who is to blame? Well there is no doubt SCC is over staffed at supervisor/middle-ma nager level. Many of these staff attempt to justify their existence with tasks a lower paid clerical/admin worker could carry out eg.allocating/checki ng work. The culture at SCC has allowed more and more supervisor/manager positions to be created at the expense of frontline staff. At the moment the whole business structure is flawed. SCC need to remove the costly back office functions and retain key frontline services where staff actually serve the public. So SCC itself is to blame for these redundancies in allowing this staffing situation to develop over many years. Rockhopper

11:37am Tue 13 Nov 12

miltonarcher says...

Just Google Gordon Browns mistakes - and when you gaze at the long list of errors, errors that cost the UK billions, remember, Ed Balls was there at the time.

Gordon overspent in the good times, now we are lumbered.
Just Google Gordon Browns mistakes - and when you gaze at the long list of errors, errors that cost the UK billions, remember, Ed Balls was there at the time. Gordon overspent in the good times, now we are lumbered. miltonarcher

11:47am Tue 13 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?
Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?[/p][/quote]Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London. thinklikealocal

11:50am Tue 13 Nov 12

George4th says...

The Grinch wrote:
As I commented on another post and in conjunction with some of the comments made here, there is only so much money in the 'pot' and the sad reality is that the Council is an archaic organisation that needs modernising, updating and stripping of huge sections of 'dead wood'. Believe me, there are comparatively high salaries being paid to staff and areas that probably add little value.

Outsourcing doesn't work and should never be used for the provision of public services. A more streamlined, agile, modern and effective Council would be able to run many of the outsourced services - without of course the profit angle that is required in private enterprise.

In today's world archaic councils are doomed and as FoysCornerBoy comments above, the future is bleak.

A new business model is required.

The answer definitely is NOT to sell the art to raise more money to plough into an outdated organisation.

I agree that the art should be sold as it serves no purpose locked up in a store room, but the money should absolutely not then be fed back into a failed system. Remodel the system, reassess the workforce, dump outdated services and then sell the art to invest in the new way forward.

If this doesn't happen then there will continue to be job losses, cuts and services withdrawn in a 'trickle' effect over the coming months and years. Unfortunately it is likely that the cuts will come in staff and areas of least resistence rather than staff and areas where it is merited. The pragmatic view is surely now to make even tougher decisions for the greater long term good.
I agree with most of what you say. Big long standing Public organisations become inefficient over time (it happened to some in the Private sector many years ago). The NHS is the classic example and needs a radical overhaul.


(One area I disagree with you is outsourcing!)
[quote][p][bold]The Grinch[/bold] wrote: As I commented on another post and in conjunction with some of the comments made here, there is only so much money in the 'pot' and the sad reality is that the Council is an archaic organisation that needs modernising, updating and stripping of huge sections of 'dead wood'. Believe me, there are comparatively high salaries being paid to staff and areas that probably add little value. Outsourcing doesn't work and should never be used for the provision of public services. A more streamlined, agile, modern and effective Council would be able to run many of the outsourced services - without of course the profit angle that is required in private enterprise. In today's world archaic councils are doomed and as FoysCornerBoy comments above, the future is bleak. A new business model is required. The answer definitely is NOT to sell the art to raise more money to plough into an outdated organisation. I agree that the art should be sold as it serves no purpose locked up in a store room, but the money should absolutely not then be fed back into a failed system. Remodel the system, reassess the workforce, dump outdated services and then sell the art to invest in the new way forward. If this doesn't happen then there will continue to be job losses, cuts and services withdrawn in a 'trickle' effect over the coming months and years. Unfortunately it is likely that the cuts will come in staff and areas of least resistence rather than staff and areas where it is merited. The pragmatic view is surely now to make even tougher decisions for the greater long term good.[/p][/quote]I agree with most of what you say. Big long standing Public organisations become inefficient over time (it happened to some in the Private sector many years ago). The NHS is the classic example and needs a radical overhaul. (One area I disagree with you is outsourcing!) George4th

12:04pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

As usual on this site passing the buck and blame game tournament between supporters of all three main political parties has started once again.

Real problem is not which party may or may not be in power but what policies they adopt.

Yes central government has made the life of local authorities very difficult, but this ConDem Coalition of unprincipled opportunist is hardly doing anything different than last New Labour under both Blair and Brown. They made no effort to reverse the policies of Thatcher’s time when they started to put boot into the finances of local councils.

When NuLabourites contested the last elections and produced all kinds of pies in the sky to mislead the voters surely they were aware that they will have to deal with ruthless people in London. Or are they really that stupid that they voluntarily walked into the kitchen on fire and too much heat to survive? Hardly surprising that Fire Fighters union has no faith left in these stupid and slippery characters of economic and political world, because they would have properly assed the situation before jumping into it like idiots.

Only way to avoid cuts is for most if not all the local councils to unite and for us the people to support them in demanding proper funding from the central government, which can afford to waste billions of many unnecessary and often even immoral projects but keep on tightening the financial screws of local council, whichever party controls these councils, makes no difference to those evil nasty and ruthless people in London.

Only ray of hope is that at least two councillors (Don Thomas and Keith Morrell) have taken a small step in that direction. That may be admirable sacrifice by them, but unless it is done at much larger scale and through out the country with full support of the public it won’t be enough.
As usual on this site passing the buck and blame game tournament between supporters of all three main political parties has started once again. Real problem is not which party may or may not be in power but what policies they adopt. Yes central government has made the life of local authorities very difficult, but this ConDem Coalition of unprincipled opportunist is hardly doing anything different than last New Labour under both Blair and Brown. They made no effort to reverse the policies of Thatcher’s time when they started to put boot into the finances of local councils. When NuLabourites contested the last elections and produced all kinds of pies in the sky to mislead the voters surely they were aware that they will have to deal with ruthless people in London. Or are they really that stupid that they voluntarily walked into the kitchen on fire and too much heat to survive? Hardly surprising that Fire Fighters union has no faith left in these stupid and slippery characters of economic and political world, because they would have properly assed the situation before jumping into it like idiots. Only way to avoid cuts is for most if not all the local councils to unite and for us the people to support them in demanding proper funding from the central government, which can afford to waste billions of many unnecessary and often even immoral projects but keep on tightening the financial screws of local council, whichever party controls these councils, makes no difference to those evil nasty and ruthless people in London. Only ray of hope is that at least two councillors (Don Thomas and Keith Morrell) have taken a small step in that direction. That may be admirable sacrifice by them, but unless it is done at much larger scale and through out the country with full support of the public it won’t be enough. Paramjit Bahia

12:05pm Tue 13 Nov 12

skeptik says...

The usual round of half truths and point scoring, my team good, yours bad. Ken Clarke handed over a string economy and contrary to popular belief Brown continued with the growth - the longest period of growth in over 200 years. Yes he did overstretch, yet the then opposition claimed that they would continue and improve on this. People were seeing house values rise - they did not complain. The crash put an end to many dreams, and it all became Browns fault. The conservatives suggested it was not a world problem but a domestic one. Now they are struggling to get it right - it has become a world economy problem. Both as bad as the other.
The usual round of half truths and point scoring, my team good, yours bad. Ken Clarke handed over a string economy and contrary to popular belief Brown continued with the growth - the longest period of growth in over 200 years. Yes he did overstretch, yet the then opposition claimed that they would continue and improve on this. People were seeing house values rise - they did not complain. The crash put an end to many dreams, and it all became Browns fault. The conservatives suggested it was not a world problem but a domestic one. Now they are struggling to get it right - it has become a world economy problem. Both as bad as the other. skeptik

12:17pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Sir Ad E Noid says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Just Google Gordon Browns mistakes - and when you gaze at the long list of errors, errors that cost the UK billions, remember, Ed Balls was there at the time. Gordon overspent in the good times, now we are lumbered.
Milton, I don't understand how "Gordons boys" are unable to work out where this Countries problems are and who caused them. Tony Blair bailed out at a good time, but he saw all this coming. Brown tried to buy our way out of trouble and saddled this Country with Debt that makes the eyes water. If the right course of action had been steered in 2008/9 then all this would of happened then, but we would be a good way through this mess and the light at the end of the tunnel would of burned bright. Feel very sorry for any body that will lose their jobs, they need to look no further than the council for short term answers to their questions and the Labour party and their state policies for their long term questions. Finally, if you don't understand why Ireland,Greece,Spain
, Italy et al is in serious trouble, suggest you pick on another subject to comment on.
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Just Google Gordon Browns mistakes - and when you gaze at the long list of errors, errors that cost the UK billions, remember, Ed Balls was there at the time. Gordon overspent in the good times, now we are lumbered.[/p][/quote]Milton, I don't understand how "Gordons boys" are unable to work out where this Countries problems are and who caused them. Tony Blair bailed out at a good time, but he saw all this coming. Brown tried to buy our way out of trouble and saddled this Country with Debt that makes the eyes water. If the right course of action had been steered in 2008/9 then all this would of happened then, but we would be a good way through this mess and the light at the end of the tunnel would of burned bright. Feel very sorry for any body that will lose their jobs, they need to look no further than the council for short term answers to their questions and the Labour party and their state policies for their long term questions. Finally, if you don't understand why Ireland,Greece,Spain , Italy et al is in serious trouble, suggest you pick on another subject to comment on. Sir Ad E Noid

12:17pm Tue 13 Nov 12

southy says...

Rockhopper wrote:
Who is to blame?
Well there is no doubt SCC is over staffed at supervisor/middle-ma

nager level.
Many of these staff attempt to justify their existence with tasks
a lower paid clerical/admin worker could carry out eg.allocating/checki

ng work.
The culture at SCC has allowed more and more supervisor/manager positions to be created at the expense of frontline staff.
At the moment the whole business structure is flawed.
SCC need to remove the costly back office functions and retain key frontline services where staff actually serve the public.
So SCC itself is to blame for these redundancies in allowing this staffing situation to develop over many years.
Its not so much who to blame, but whats to blame and that is the political and economic system thats at fault, the down fall started in the 80's because the system was change to one that we all ready know that don't work (it never work in the 1920's and 30's and it lead the world to war), and all the time while this system is allowed to remain its just going to get worse.
[quote][p][bold]Rockhopper[/bold] wrote: Who is to blame? Well there is no doubt SCC is over staffed at supervisor/middle-ma nager level. Many of these staff attempt to justify their existence with tasks a lower paid clerical/admin worker could carry out eg.allocating/checki ng work. The culture at SCC has allowed more and more supervisor/manager positions to be created at the expense of frontline staff. At the moment the whole business structure is flawed. SCC need to remove the costly back office functions and retain key frontline services where staff actually serve the public. So SCC itself is to blame for these redundancies in allowing this staffing situation to develop over many years.[/p][/quote]Its not so much who to blame, but whats to blame and that is the political and economic system thats at fault, the down fall started in the 80's because the system was change to one that we all ready know that don't work (it never work in the 1920's and 30's and it lead the world to war), and all the time while this system is allowed to remain its just going to get worse. southy

12:26pm Tue 13 Nov 12

southy says...

ohec wrote:
Plum Pudding wrote:
We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services.

If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...
I am afraid you are right democracy went out of the window a long time back both at local and central government levels, it no longer matters what the masses want it is what we are told we want, we the ordinary uneducated have been telling successive governments about the mass immigration and the problems it causes but know we are told that we need all of these immigrants.
The majority of people want a referendum on the E.U. to my mind i think the majority want out and to reclaim our sovereignty, but in or out we want that choice but we are denied that choice by all major parties. Local councils are being stitched up by the thieving lying parasites we call M.Ps who's first and only interest is lining their own pockets. Good idea that Dave cut the councils budgets and let them take all the flack,it doesn't take a genius to see that the current economic policies are not working we are just slipping deeper into the mire but just like stubborn children they won't admit they are wrong. Create jobs by investing in infrastructure houses etc then those working go out and spend their wages creating more work, thats how it works is it really that difficult??
Thats part of the needs budget program, its good to see that some one at lest knows whats is need to be done, unlike the the Greens supporter Freefinker who just do not under stand.
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plum Pudding[/bold] wrote: We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services. If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...[/p][/quote]I am afraid you are right democracy went out of the window a long time back both at local and central government levels, it no longer matters what the masses want it is what we are told we want, we the ordinary uneducated have been telling successive governments about the mass immigration and the problems it causes but know we are told that we need all of these immigrants. The majority of people want a referendum on the E.U. to my mind i think the majority want out and to reclaim our sovereignty, but in or out we want that choice but we are denied that choice by all major parties. Local councils are being stitched up by the thieving lying parasites we call M.Ps who's first and only interest is lining their own pockets. Good idea that Dave cut the councils budgets and let them take all the flack,it doesn't take a genius to see that the current economic policies are not working we are just slipping deeper into the mire but just like stubborn children they won't admit they are wrong. Create jobs by investing in infrastructure houses etc then those working go out and spend their wages creating more work, thats how it works is it really that difficult??[/p][/quote]Thats part of the needs budget program, its good to see that some one at lest knows whats is need to be done, unlike the the Greens supporter Freefinker who just do not under stand. southy

12:31pm Tue 13 Nov 12

chrisja says...

Sorry to all those who lost their jobs :(
Sorry to all those who lost their jobs :( chrisja

12:40pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Linesman says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?
Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.
With regard lies.

Who was it said that no council money would be spent on the white elephant maritime museum that was sited in the wrong place?

It certainly was not Gordon Brown, nor was it any of his colleagues.
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?[/p][/quote]Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.[/p][/quote]With regard lies. Who was it said that no council money would be spent on the white elephant maritime museum that was sited in the wrong place? It certainly was not Gordon Brown, nor was it any of his colleagues. Linesman

12:42pm Tue 13 Nov 12

good-gosh says...

The good news is that reductions of taxpayer hand-outs to Southampton and other cities will provide more taxpayer cash to reduce the £46,000 million national debt interest thrown away each year. Huge interest payments are an absolutely stupid waste of money. Crippling national debt is the cause of these troubles but, unlike some countries, the UK is managing its way out. And when the national debt has been whittled down, councils and other pubic organisations can return to employing all the people they need.
The good news is that reductions of taxpayer hand-outs to Southampton and other cities will provide more taxpayer cash to reduce the £46,000 million national debt interest thrown away each year. Huge interest payments are an absolutely stupid waste of money. Crippling national debt is the cause of these troubles but, unlike some countries, the UK is managing its way out. And when the national debt has been whittled down, councils and other pubic organisations can return to employing all the people they need. good-gosh

12:47pm Tue 13 Nov 12

southy says...

good-gosh wrote:
The good news is that reductions of taxpayer hand-outs to Southampton and other cities will provide more taxpayer cash to reduce the £46,000 million national debt interest thrown away each year. Huge interest payments are an absolutely stupid waste of money. Crippling national debt is the cause of these troubles but, unlike some countries, the UK is managing its way out. And when the national debt has been whittled down, councils and other pubic organisations can return to employing all the people they need.
Not going to happen, as you make more people unemployed so will there be a need for them to claim benefits, which will have to be paid from some where, as this increases so do the national debt at the same time, as more money is needed to keep things running.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The good news is that reductions of taxpayer hand-outs to Southampton and other cities will provide more taxpayer cash to reduce the £46,000 million national debt interest thrown away each year. Huge interest payments are an absolutely stupid waste of money. Crippling national debt is the cause of these troubles but, unlike some countries, the UK is managing its way out. And when the national debt has been whittled down, councils and other pubic organisations can return to employing all the people they need.[/p][/quote]Not going to happen, as you make more people unemployed so will there be a need for them to claim benefits, which will have to be paid from some where, as this increases so do the national debt at the same time, as more money is needed to keep things running. southy

12:59pm Tue 13 Nov 12

miltonarcher says...

Just pray Ed Balls never gets his hands on the UK's budget
Just pray Ed Balls never gets his hands on the UK's budget miltonarcher

1:04pm Tue 13 Nov 12

southy says...

Why is it papers do not report on the quiet revolution that took place in Iceland.
The people there sack there government after that government followed the rest of the western world of Capitalism and put in place the same rules that was ask by the UK, Germans and USA, then had that financial crash that they never seen before.
They put in place a Socialist government who put back all the restictions, removed all the rules that cause the damage, and now look at there economy one of a few countrys that the national debt is going down, the others are India, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and a few more and they all have one thing in common a Sociology ideals of some form or other.
Why is it papers do not report on the quiet revolution that took place in Iceland. The people there sack there government after that government followed the rest of the western world of Capitalism and put in place the same rules that was ask by the UK, Germans and USA, then had that financial crash that they never seen before. They put in place a Socialist government who put back all the restictions, removed all the rules that cause the damage, and now look at there economy one of a few countrys that the national debt is going down, the others are India, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and a few more and they all have one thing in common a Sociology ideals of some form or other. southy

1:37pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Why is it papers do not report on the quiet revolution that took place in Iceland.
The people there sack there government after that government followed the rest of the western world of Capitalism and put in place the same rules that was ask by the UK, Germans and USA, then had that financial crash that they never seen before.
They put in place a Socialist government who put back all the restictions, removed all the rules that cause the damage, and now look at there economy one of a few countrys that the national debt is going down, the others are India, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and a few more and they all have one thing in common a Sociology ideals of some form or other.
Yes, they are having a great time in Venezuela aren't they? The gap between the rich and poor is widening at an exponential rate, so the crime rate has shot through the roof? I thought Chavez's 'quiet' revolution has supposed to close this gap, what with them being the largest exporter of oil and having what could be the world's largest reserves.

Where is this great Socialist? Ah yes, he sits upon a large hill in a mansion, although I can appreciate he's been ill recently, the government is STILL in the pocket of the local Mafia. Kidnappings are on the increase.

Freedom House lists Venezuela as being "partly free".

Yes, it sounds like a utopia.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Why is it papers do not report on the quiet revolution that took place in Iceland. The people there sack there government after that government followed the rest of the western world of Capitalism and put in place the same rules that was ask by the UK, Germans and USA, then had that financial crash that they never seen before. They put in place a Socialist government who put back all the restictions, removed all the rules that cause the damage, and now look at there economy one of a few countrys that the national debt is going down, the others are India, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and a few more and they all have one thing in common a Sociology ideals of some form or other.[/p][/quote]Yes, they are having a great time in Venezuela aren't they? The gap between the rich and poor is widening at an exponential rate, so the crime rate has shot through the roof? I thought Chavez's 'quiet' revolution has supposed to close this gap, what with them being the largest exporter of oil and having what could be the world's largest reserves. Where is this great Socialist? Ah yes, he sits upon a large hill in a mansion, although I can appreciate he's been ill recently, the government is STILL in the pocket of the local Mafia. Kidnappings are on the increase. Freedom House lists Venezuela as being "partly free". Yes, it sounds like a utopia. Shoong

1:39pm Tue 13 Nov 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
ohec wrote:
Plum Pudding wrote:
We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services.

If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...
I am afraid you are right democracy went out of the window a long time back both at local and central government levels, it no longer matters what the masses want it is what we are told we want, we the ordinary uneducated have been telling successive governments about the mass immigration and the problems it causes but know we are told that we need all of these immigrants.
The majority of people want a referendum on the E.U. to my mind i think the majority want out and to reclaim our sovereignty, but in or out we want that choice but we are denied that choice by all major parties. Local councils are being stitched up by the thieving lying parasites we call M.Ps who's first and only interest is lining their own pockets. Good idea that Dave cut the councils budgets and let them take all the flack,it doesn't take a genius to see that the current economic policies are not working we are just slipping deeper into the mire but just like stubborn children they won't admit they are wrong. Create jobs by investing in infrastructure houses etc then those working go out and spend their wages creating more work, thats how it works is it really that difficult??
Thats part of the needs budget program, its good to see that some one at lest knows whats is need to be done, unlike the the Greens supporter Freefinker who just do not under stand.
1) now, for the sixth time; I am NOT a member of the Green Party, I have NEVER been a member and I have NO intention of ever being so. What part of that do you not understand?

2) 'needs budget program' again - southy's very own made up little phrase. When challenged yesterday to provide even one single scrap of evidence for its existence, or to tell us what it actually means, he couldn't provide. Did the usual disappearing routine.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plum Pudding[/bold] wrote: We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services. If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...[/p][/quote]I am afraid you are right democracy went out of the window a long time back both at local and central government levels, it no longer matters what the masses want it is what we are told we want, we the ordinary uneducated have been telling successive governments about the mass immigration and the problems it causes but know we are told that we need all of these immigrants. The majority of people want a referendum on the E.U. to my mind i think the majority want out and to reclaim our sovereignty, but in or out we want that choice but we are denied that choice by all major parties. Local councils are being stitched up by the thieving lying parasites we call M.Ps who's first and only interest is lining their own pockets. Good idea that Dave cut the councils budgets and let them take all the flack,it doesn't take a genius to see that the current economic policies are not working we are just slipping deeper into the mire but just like stubborn children they won't admit they are wrong. Create jobs by investing in infrastructure houses etc then those working go out and spend their wages creating more work, thats how it works is it really that difficult??[/p][/quote]Thats part of the needs budget program, its good to see that some one at lest knows whats is need to be done, unlike the the Greens supporter Freefinker who just do not under stand.[/p][/quote]1) now, for the sixth time; I am NOT a member of the Green Party, I have NEVER been a member and I have NO intention of ever being so. What part of that do you not understand? 2) 'needs budget program' again - southy's very own made up little phrase. When challenged yesterday to provide even one single scrap of evidence for its existence, or to tell us what it actually means, he couldn't provide. Did the usual disappearing routine. freefinker

1:54pm Tue 13 Nov 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Why is it papers do not report on the quiet revolution that took place in Iceland.
The people there sack there government after that government followed the rest of the western world of Capitalism and put in place the same rules that was ask by the UK, Germans and USA, then had that financial crash that they never seen before.
They put in place a Socialist government who put back all the restictions, removed all the rules that cause the damage, and now look at there economy one of a few countrys that the national debt is going down, the others are India, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and a few more and they all have one thing in common a Sociology ideals of some form or other.
Yes, they are having a great time in Venezuela aren't they? The gap between the rich and poor is widening at an exponential rate, so the crime rate has shot through the roof? I thought Chavez's 'quiet' revolution has supposed to close this gap, what with them being the largest exporter of oil and having what could be the world's largest reserves.

Where is this great Socialist? Ah yes, he sits upon a large hill in a mansion, although I can appreciate he's been ill recently, the government is STILL in the pocket of the local Mafia. Kidnappings are on the increase.

Freedom House lists Venezuela as being "partly free".

Yes, it sounds like a utopia.
your wrong the gap between rich and poor is closing, Crime rate is dropping simple reason people have the money to spend, and he is not ill, and why he is protected in such away is because of the Americans, they all ready had one fail coop in Venezuela orchestrated by the USA CIA that tried to change government there and deport Chavez to the USA that failed because of the people, rose up against the American coop, Venezuela kidnappings are being done by a very small group that supports the Americans.
Try and find the truth about that country (or better still go there and see dirst hand) and not the America CIA false propaganda about the country.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Why is it papers do not report on the quiet revolution that took place in Iceland. The people there sack there government after that government followed the rest of the western world of Capitalism and put in place the same rules that was ask by the UK, Germans and USA, then had that financial crash that they never seen before. They put in place a Socialist government who put back all the restictions, removed all the rules that cause the damage, and now look at there economy one of a few countrys that the national debt is going down, the others are India, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and a few more and they all have one thing in common a Sociology ideals of some form or other.[/p][/quote]Yes, they are having a great time in Venezuela aren't they? The gap between the rich and poor is widening at an exponential rate, so the crime rate has shot through the roof? I thought Chavez's 'quiet' revolution has supposed to close this gap, what with them being the largest exporter of oil and having what could be the world's largest reserves. Where is this great Socialist? Ah yes, he sits upon a large hill in a mansion, although I can appreciate he's been ill recently, the government is STILL in the pocket of the local Mafia. Kidnappings are on the increase. Freedom House lists Venezuela as being "partly free". Yes, it sounds like a utopia.[/p][/quote]your wrong the gap between rich and poor is closing, Crime rate is dropping simple reason people have the money to spend, and he is not ill, and why he is protected in such away is because of the Americans, they all ready had one fail coop in Venezuela orchestrated by the USA CIA that tried to change government there and deport Chavez to the USA that failed because of the people, rose up against the American coop, Venezuela kidnappings are being done by a very small group that supports the Americans. Try and find the truth about that country (or better still go there and see dirst hand) and not the America CIA false propaganda about the country. southy

1:59pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Why is it papers do not report on the quiet revolution that took place in Iceland.
The people there sack there government after that government followed the rest of the western world of Capitalism and put in place the same rules that was ask by the UK, Germans and USA, then had that financial crash that they never seen before.
They put in place a Socialist government who put back all the restictions, removed all the rules that cause the damage, and now look at there economy one of a few countrys that the national debt is going down, the others are India, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and a few more and they all have one thing in common a Sociology ideals of some form or other.
Yes, they are having a great time in Venezuela aren't they? The gap between the rich and poor is widening at an exponential rate, so the crime rate has shot through the roof? I thought Chavez's 'quiet' revolution has supposed to close this gap, what with them being the largest exporter of oil and having what could be the world's largest reserves.

Where is this great Socialist? Ah yes, he sits upon a large hill in a mansion, although I can appreciate he's been ill recently, the government is STILL in the pocket of the local Mafia. Kidnappings are on the increase.

Freedom House lists Venezuela as being "partly free".

Yes, it sounds like a utopia.
your wrong the gap between rich and poor is closing, Crime rate is dropping simple reason people have the money to spend, and he is not ill, and why he is protected in such away is because of the Americans, they all ready had one fail coop in Venezuela orchestrated by the USA CIA that tried to change government there and deport Chavez to the USA that failed because of the people, rose up against the American coop, Venezuela kidnappings are being done by a very small group that supports the Americans.
Try and find the truth about that country (or better still go there and see dirst hand) and not the America CIA false propaganda about the country.
'America CIA false propaganda'...

Oh dear, heads gone...
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Why is it papers do not report on the quiet revolution that took place in Iceland. The people there sack there government after that government followed the rest of the western world of Capitalism and put in place the same rules that was ask by the UK, Germans and USA, then had that financial crash that they never seen before. They put in place a Socialist government who put back all the restictions, removed all the rules that cause the damage, and now look at there economy one of a few countrys that the national debt is going down, the others are India, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and a few more and they all have one thing in common a Sociology ideals of some form or other.[/p][/quote]Yes, they are having a great time in Venezuela aren't they? The gap between the rich and poor is widening at an exponential rate, so the crime rate has shot through the roof? I thought Chavez's 'quiet' revolution has supposed to close this gap, what with them being the largest exporter of oil and having what could be the world's largest reserves. Where is this great Socialist? Ah yes, he sits upon a large hill in a mansion, although I can appreciate he's been ill recently, the government is STILL in the pocket of the local Mafia. Kidnappings are on the increase. Freedom House lists Venezuela as being "partly free". Yes, it sounds like a utopia.[/p][/quote]your wrong the gap between rich and poor is closing, Crime rate is dropping simple reason people have the money to spend, and he is not ill, and why he is protected in such away is because of the Americans, they all ready had one fail coop in Venezuela orchestrated by the USA CIA that tried to change government there and deport Chavez to the USA that failed because of the people, rose up against the American coop, Venezuela kidnappings are being done by a very small group that supports the Americans. Try and find the truth about that country (or better still go there and see dirst hand) and not the America CIA false propaganda about the country.[/p][/quote]'America CIA false propaganda'... Oh dear, heads gone... Shoong

2:11pm Tue 13 Nov 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
ohec wrote:
Plum Pudding wrote:
We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services.

If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...
I am afraid you are right democracy went out of the window a long time back both at local and central government levels, it no longer matters what the masses want it is what we are told we want, we the ordinary uneducated have been telling successive governments about the mass immigration and the problems it causes but know we are told that we need all of these immigrants.
The majority of people want a referendum on the E.U. to my mind i think the majority want out and to reclaim our sovereignty, but in or out we want that choice but we are denied that choice by all major parties. Local councils are being stitched up by the thieving lying parasites we call M.Ps who's first and only interest is lining their own pockets. Good idea that Dave cut the councils budgets and let them take all the flack,it doesn't take a genius to see that the current economic policies are not working we are just slipping deeper into the mire but just like stubborn children they won't admit they are wrong. Create jobs by investing in infrastructure houses etc then those working go out and spend their wages creating more work, thats how it works is it really that difficult??
Thats part of the needs budget program, its good to see that some one at lest knows whats is need to be done, unlike the the Greens supporter Freefinker who just do not under stand.
1) now, for the sixth time; I am NOT a member of the Green Party, I have NEVER been a member and I have NO intention of ever being so. What part of that do you not understand?

2) 'needs budget program' again - southy's very own made up little phrase. When challenged yesterday to provide even one single scrap of evidence for its existence, or to tell us what it actually means, he couldn't provide. Did the usual disappearing routine.
1/ did I say you was this time, "no" I did not I said you support them.

2/ this is a very much a political posting artical, at lest have some under standing before posting just like "ohec" do. And seems to know what a needs budget program is as he as quoted a bit of it, which in turns he must of spent a bit of time reseaching and under standing of it. Unlike you, you expect every one else to do the work for you, as for the made up little phrase, its been around longer than I have live, it dates back to at lest the 1920's and 30's and maybe even longer.

Jeremy Hope, Robin Fraser, Peter Bunce and Franz Röösli talks about a needs budget back in 2000.
Liverpool 2011.
Victor L. Berger and Meyer London 1920-1924.
These are just a few of some of the talks about a needs budget program.
Needs Budget program as been put forward by the Socialist party here in Southampton for the last 3 to 4 years.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plum Pudding[/bold] wrote: We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services. If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...[/p][/quote]I am afraid you are right democracy went out of the window a long time back both at local and central government levels, it no longer matters what the masses want it is what we are told we want, we the ordinary uneducated have been telling successive governments about the mass immigration and the problems it causes but know we are told that we need all of these immigrants. The majority of people want a referendum on the E.U. to my mind i think the majority want out and to reclaim our sovereignty, but in or out we want that choice but we are denied that choice by all major parties. Local councils are being stitched up by the thieving lying parasites we call M.Ps who's first and only interest is lining their own pockets. Good idea that Dave cut the councils budgets and let them take all the flack,it doesn't take a genius to see that the current economic policies are not working we are just slipping deeper into the mire but just like stubborn children they won't admit they are wrong. Create jobs by investing in infrastructure houses etc then those working go out and spend their wages creating more work, thats how it works is it really that difficult??[/p][/quote]Thats part of the needs budget program, its good to see that some one at lest knows whats is need to be done, unlike the the Greens supporter Freefinker who just do not under stand.[/p][/quote]1) now, for the sixth time; I am NOT a member of the Green Party, I have NEVER been a member and I have NO intention of ever being so. What part of that do you not understand? 2) 'needs budget program' again - southy's very own made up little phrase. When challenged yesterday to provide even one single scrap of evidence for its existence, or to tell us what it actually means, he couldn't provide. Did the usual disappearing routine.[/p][/quote]1/ did I say you was this time, "no" I did not I said you support them. 2/ this is a very much a political posting artical, at lest have some under standing before posting just like "ohec" do. And seems to know what a needs budget program is as he as quoted a bit of it, which in turns he must of spent a bit of time reseaching and under standing of it. Unlike you, you expect every one else to do the work for you, as for the made up little phrase, its been around longer than I have live, it dates back to at lest the 1920's and 30's and maybe even longer. Jeremy Hope, Robin Fraser, Peter Bunce and Franz Röösli talks about a needs budget back in 2000. Liverpool 2011. Victor L. Berger and Meyer London 1920-1924. These are just a few of some of the talks about a needs budget program. Needs Budget program as been put forward by the Socialist party here in Southampton for the last 3 to 4 years. southy

2:13pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Shoong wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs.
.
The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council.
.
What mugs.
.
Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council.
.
Shameful.
.
Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse.
.
The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it.
.
I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long.
.
'Lactivating'?

I think you are taking it the wrong way - I don't think anyone is 'celebrating' job losses. Not even the most hard nosed of us want to see that. It does happen in the private sector as well you know - I was informed at the start of this month that my job is being moved to India and I've got a month to find another job!

However, there are those who feel that it's necessary - don't confuse that with celebrating.
Shoong ........No i apologise.
I posted incorrectly. I meant the word salivate.
.
Whilst we dont see eye to eye i would not suggest that
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]'Lactivating'? I think you are taking it the wrong way - I don't think anyone is 'celebrating' job losses. Not even the most hard nosed of us want to see that. It does happen in the private sector as well you know - I was informed at the start of this month that my job is being moved to India and I've got a month to find another job! However, there are those who feel that it's necessary - don't confuse that with celebrating.[/p][/quote]Shoong ........No i apologise. I posted incorrectly. I meant the word salivate. . Whilst we dont see eye to eye i would not suggest that Lone Ranger.

2:17pm Tue 13 Nov 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Why is it papers do not report on the quiet revolution that took place in Iceland.
The people there sack there government after that government followed the rest of the western world of Capitalism and put in place the same rules that was ask by the UK, Germans and USA, then had that financial crash that they never seen before.
They put in place a Socialist government who put back all the restictions, removed all the rules that cause the damage, and now look at there economy one of a few countrys that the national debt is going down, the others are India, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and a few more and they all have one thing in common a Sociology ideals of some form or other.
Yes, they are having a great time in Venezuela aren't they? The gap between the rich and poor is widening at an exponential rate, so the crime rate has shot through the roof? I thought Chavez's 'quiet' revolution has supposed to close this gap, what with them being the largest exporter of oil and having what could be the world's largest reserves.

Where is this great Socialist? Ah yes, he sits upon a large hill in a mansion, although I can appreciate he's been ill recently, the government is STILL in the pocket of the local Mafia. Kidnappings are on the increase.

Freedom House lists Venezuela as being "partly free".

Yes, it sounds like a utopia.
your wrong the gap between rich and poor is closing, Crime rate is dropping simple reason people have the money to spend, and he is not ill, and why he is protected in such away is because of the Americans, they all ready had one fail coop in Venezuela orchestrated by the USA CIA that tried to change government there and deport Chavez to the USA that failed because of the people, rose up against the American coop, Venezuela kidnappings are being done by a very small group that supports the Americans.
Try and find the truth about that country (or better still go there and see dirst hand) and not the America CIA false propaganda about the country.
'America CIA false propaganda'...

Oh dear, heads gone...
Oh dear you forgot what Bush said, and what Nixon said also, and what the pair had done.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Why is it papers do not report on the quiet revolution that took place in Iceland. The people there sack there government after that government followed the rest of the western world of Capitalism and put in place the same rules that was ask by the UK, Germans and USA, then had that financial crash that they never seen before. They put in place a Socialist government who put back all the restictions, removed all the rules that cause the damage, and now look at there economy one of a few countrys that the national debt is going down, the others are India, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and a few more and they all have one thing in common a Sociology ideals of some form or other.[/p][/quote]Yes, they are having a great time in Venezuela aren't they? The gap between the rich and poor is widening at an exponential rate, so the crime rate has shot through the roof? I thought Chavez's 'quiet' revolution has supposed to close this gap, what with them being the largest exporter of oil and having what could be the world's largest reserves. Where is this great Socialist? Ah yes, he sits upon a large hill in a mansion, although I can appreciate he's been ill recently, the government is STILL in the pocket of the local Mafia. Kidnappings are on the increase. Freedom House lists Venezuela as being "partly free". Yes, it sounds like a utopia.[/p][/quote]your wrong the gap between rich and poor is closing, Crime rate is dropping simple reason people have the money to spend, and he is not ill, and why he is protected in such away is because of the Americans, they all ready had one fail coop in Venezuela orchestrated by the USA CIA that tried to change government there and deport Chavez to the USA that failed because of the people, rose up against the American coop, Venezuela kidnappings are being done by a very small group that supports the Americans. Try and find the truth about that country (or better still go there and see dirst hand) and not the America CIA false propaganda about the country.[/p][/quote]'America CIA false propaganda'... Oh dear, heads gone...[/p][/quote]Oh dear you forgot what Bush said, and what Nixon said also, and what the pair had done. southy

2:22pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Shoong says...

'n 2009, the homicide rate was approximately 57 per 100,000, one of the world’s highest, having trebled in the previous decade. There have been 118,541 homicides in Venezuela between 1999 and 2010. Venezuela ranks fourth in the world for cocaine seizures. (Source: The Economist).

The Corruption Perceptions Index: Venezuela = 172. There are only 182 countries in it.

Yep, he's doing a great job, hats off to your man.
'n 2009, the homicide rate was approximately 57 per 100,000, one of the world’s highest, having trebled in the previous decade. There have been 118,541 homicides in Venezuela between 1999 and 2010. Venezuela ranks fourth in the world for cocaine seizures. (Source: The Economist). The Corruption Perceptions Index: Venezuela = 172. There are only 182 countries in it. Yep, he's doing a great job, hats off to your man. Shoong

2:26pm Tue 13 Nov 12

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?
Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.
Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose?
When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts.
I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay?
You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services.
The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong?
ARE YOU getting made redundant?
Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts?
You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs.
You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L
abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?[/p][/quote]Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.[/p][/quote]Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service? loosehead

2:32pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs.
.
The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council.
.
What mugs.
.
Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council.
.
Shameful.
.
Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse.
.
The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it.
.
I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long.
.
I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did.

Why waste £4m on redundancies?

Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job.

But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed.

The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees.

I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did. Why waste £4m on redundancies? Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job. But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed. The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees. I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good Sotonians_lets_pull_together

3:10pm Tue 13 Nov 12

one in a million says...

"HORRENDOUS - fall out from worst cuts EVER"

What a headline!
"HORRENDOUS - fall out from worst cuts EVER" What a headline! one in a million

3:18pm Tue 13 Nov 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
'n 2009, the homicide rate was approximately 57 per 100,000, one of the world’s highest, having trebled in the previous decade. There have been 118,541 homicides in Venezuela between 1999 and 2010. Venezuela ranks fourth in the world for cocaine seizures. (Source: The Economist).

The Corruption Perceptions Index: Venezuela = 172. There are only 182 countries in it.

Yep, he's doing a great job, hats off to your man.
Wrong that was said by the usa cia propaganda machine. 3 mth before the Economist put it in print, The worlds highest homicides are in the USA citys. the top are New York, Miami, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas.
Venezuela population is only around the 29 million todate, and population growth rate is only 1.6, it would not be able to have a 118,541 homicides in a year, Tropical diseases are the biggest killers in Venezuela in the out laying villages, where it hard to get medical help quick enough, but even so Tropical Diseases still do not kill that many, if it did the Venezuela population would be falling and not rising.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: 'n 2009, the homicide rate was approximately 57 per 100,000, one of the world’s highest, having trebled in the previous decade. There have been 118,541 homicides in Venezuela between 1999 and 2010. Venezuela ranks fourth in the world for cocaine seizures. (Source: The Economist). The Corruption Perceptions Index: Venezuela = 172. There are only 182 countries in it. Yep, he's doing a great job, hats off to your man.[/p][/quote]Wrong that was said by the usa cia propaganda machine. 3 mth before the Economist put it in print, The worlds highest homicides are in the USA citys. the top are New York, Miami, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas. Venezuela population is only around the 29 million todate, and population growth rate is only 1.6, it would not be able to have a 118,541 homicides in a year, Tropical diseases are the biggest killers in Venezuela in the out laying villages, where it hard to get medical help quick enough, but even so Tropical Diseases still do not kill that many, if it did the Venezuela population would be falling and not rising. southy

3:46pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Pettle says...

Yes it is horrendous. But a few years ago, important manufacturing jobs that were perfectly viable in this country, but lost in the 1000s, were only seen as a pity, or a shame!
Yes it is horrendous. But a few years ago, important manufacturing jobs that were perfectly viable in this country, but lost in the 1000s, were only seen as a pity, or a shame! Pettle

3:49pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
'n 2009, the homicide rate was approximately 57 per 100,000, one of the world’s highest, having trebled in the previous decade. There have been 118,541 homicides in Venezuela between 1999 and 2010. Venezuela ranks fourth in the world for cocaine seizures. (Source: The Economist).

The Corruption Perceptions Index: Venezuela = 172. There are only 182 countries in it.

Yep, he's doing a great job, hats off to your man.
Wrong that was said by the usa cia propaganda machine. 3 mth before the Economist put it in print, The worlds highest homicides are in the USA citys. the top are New York, Miami, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas.
Venezuela population is only around the 29 million todate, and population growth rate is only 1.6, it would not be able to have a 118,541 homicides in a year, Tropical diseases are the biggest killers in Venezuela in the out laying villages, where it hard to get medical help quick enough, but even so Tropical Diseases still do not kill that many, if it did the Venezuela population would be falling and not rising.
The figures quoted were by country, not states or regions within a country. No one denies the USA has a high homicide rate.

Not sure where the disease comments come into it - as far as I was aware catching a disease is not a crime.

So, as you are so fond of saying, you have 'twisted' on me.

The facts speak for themselves.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: 'n 2009, the homicide rate was approximately 57 per 100,000, one of the world’s highest, having trebled in the previous decade. There have been 118,541 homicides in Venezuela between 1999 and 2010. Venezuela ranks fourth in the world for cocaine seizures. (Source: The Economist). The Corruption Perceptions Index: Venezuela = 172. There are only 182 countries in it. Yep, he's doing a great job, hats off to your man.[/p][/quote]Wrong that was said by the usa cia propaganda machine. 3 mth before the Economist put it in print, The worlds highest homicides are in the USA citys. the top are New York, Miami, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas. Venezuela population is only around the 29 million todate, and population growth rate is only 1.6, it would not be able to have a 118,541 homicides in a year, Tropical diseases are the biggest killers in Venezuela in the out laying villages, where it hard to get medical help quick enough, but even so Tropical Diseases still do not kill that many, if it did the Venezuela population would be falling and not rising.[/p][/quote]The figures quoted were by country, not states or regions within a country. No one denies the USA has a high homicide rate. Not sure where the disease comments come into it - as far as I was aware catching a disease is not a crime. So, as you are so fond of saying, you have 'twisted' on me. The facts speak for themselves. Shoong

3:56pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs.
.
The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council.
.
What mugs.
.
Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council.
.
Shameful.
.
Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse.
.
The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it.
.
I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long.
.
I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did.

Why waste £4m on redundancies?

Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job.

But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed.

The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees.

I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good
Strange how we see things so differently.
.
I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments.
.
Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so.
.
Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky.
.
The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs.
.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did. Why waste £4m on redundancies? Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job. But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed. The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees. I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good[/p][/quote]Strange how we see things so differently. . I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments. . Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so. . Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky. . The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs. . Lone Ranger.

4:03pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs.
.
The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council.
.
What mugs.
.
Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council.
.
Shameful.
.
Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse.
.
The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it.
.
I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long.
.
I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did.

Why waste £4m on redundancies?

Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job.

But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed.

The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees.

I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good
Strange how we see things so differently.
.
I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments.
.
Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so.
.
Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky.
.
The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs.
.
Lone Ranger,

Its very simple to review what the conservative plans were, and what Williams said when seeking office, and after achieving office.

The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council, and the council workers will rue not standing up to the Unions.

Sadly it was entirely predictable that Labour and the Unions would let them down.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did. Why waste £4m on redundancies? Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job. But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed. The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees. I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good[/p][/quote]Strange how we see things so differently. . I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments. . Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so. . Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky. . The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs. .[/p][/quote]Lone Ranger, Its very simple to review what the conservative plans were, and what Williams said when seeking office, and after achieving office. The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council, and the council workers will rue not standing up to the Unions. Sadly it was entirely predictable that Labour and the Unions would let them down. Sotonians_lets_pull_together

4:49pm Tue 13 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?
Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.
Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?
I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?[/p][/quote]Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.[/p][/quote]Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?[/p][/quote]I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare. thinklikealocal

5:01pm Tue 13 Nov 12

The Grinch says...

George4th wrote:
The Grinch wrote: As I commented on another post and in conjunction with some of the comments made here, there is only so much money in the 'pot' and the sad reality is that the Council is an archaic organisation that needs modernising, updating and stripping of huge sections of 'dead wood'. Believe me, there are comparatively high salaries being paid to staff and areas that probably add little value. Outsourcing doesn't work and should never be used for the provision of public services. A more streamlined, agile, modern and effective Council would be able to run many of the outsourced services - without of course the profit angle that is required in private enterprise. In today's world archaic councils are doomed and as FoysCornerBoy comments above, the future is bleak. A new business model is required. The answer definitely is NOT to sell the art to raise more money to plough into an outdated organisation. I agree that the art should be sold as it serves no purpose locked up in a store room, but the money should absolutely not then be fed back into a failed system. Remodel the system, reassess the workforce, dump outdated services and then sell the art to invest in the new way forward. If this doesn't happen then there will continue to be job losses, cuts and services withdrawn in a 'trickle' effect over the coming months and years. Unfortunately it is likely that the cuts will come in staff and areas of least resistence rather than staff and areas where it is merited. The pragmatic view is surely now to make even tougher decisions for the greater long term good.
I agree with most of what you say. Big long standing Public organisations become inefficient over time (it happened to some in the Private sector many years ago). The NHS is the classic example and needs a radical overhaul. (One area I disagree with you is outsourcing!)
George,

I think that outsourcing (in respect of public services) is one of those concepts that looks good on paper but always ends in tears.

Take the Capita arrangement for instance. Capita are an aggressive profit making organisation. They offer to provide certain services for a fee. They're good at striking deals like this and unwitting Councils don't spot the issues. So, they get the contract and then stick to it to the letter. Everything is too much trouble and certain things you thought were part of the agreement turn out not to be - the small print is everything. So, the Council ends up buying back the extras it thought were part of the deal. There is little cooperation, there is no real interest in providing service, just making money - the profit angle that does not exist within a public 'not for profit' organisation. The Council ends up paying to employ people to 'manage' the relationship. When they TUPE transfer the Council staff too, it makes it virtually impossible to bring the service back inside the remit of the Council if the Capita arrangement is considered unworkable because there are no staff left capable of doing it.

I truly believe that local public services should be deliverable by public staff at better costs than a private enterprise. This of course is what SHOULD be possible, but as the Council has become more and more outdated of course, it's ability to run those services diminishes and opens the door for private enterprises to turn up with 'solutions'.

Fundamentally ALL public services should only be run for the benefit of the public they serve. Private enterprises care very little about service, despite the usual rhetoric, and their sole aim is to make money. On this fundamental basis they must surely be more expensive as a solution?

Only where their service provision is considered relative to an out of touch, poorly organised alternative does it look feasible. In the short term it ends up showing a saving on the bottom line. In the long term it doesn't.

George, why do you think that outsourcing is a good idea? I am interested to know.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Grinch[/bold] wrote: As I commented on another post and in conjunction with some of the comments made here, there is only so much money in the 'pot' and the sad reality is that the Council is an archaic organisation that needs modernising, updating and stripping of huge sections of 'dead wood'. Believe me, there are comparatively high salaries being paid to staff and areas that probably add little value. Outsourcing doesn't work and should never be used for the provision of public services. A more streamlined, agile, modern and effective Council would be able to run many of the outsourced services - without of course the profit angle that is required in private enterprise. In today's world archaic councils are doomed and as FoysCornerBoy comments above, the future is bleak. A new business model is required. The answer definitely is NOT to sell the art to raise more money to plough into an outdated organisation. I agree that the art should be sold as it serves no purpose locked up in a store room, but the money should absolutely not then be fed back into a failed system. Remodel the system, reassess the workforce, dump outdated services and then sell the art to invest in the new way forward. If this doesn't happen then there will continue to be job losses, cuts and services withdrawn in a 'trickle' effect over the coming months and years. Unfortunately it is likely that the cuts will come in staff and areas of least resistence rather than staff and areas where it is merited. The pragmatic view is surely now to make even tougher decisions for the greater long term good.[/p][/quote]I agree with most of what you say. Big long standing Public organisations become inefficient over time (it happened to some in the Private sector many years ago). The NHS is the classic example and needs a radical overhaul. (One area I disagree with you is outsourcing!)[/p][/quote]George, I think that outsourcing (in respect of public services) is one of those concepts that looks good on paper but always ends in tears. Take the Capita arrangement for instance. Capita are an aggressive profit making organisation. They offer to provide certain services for a fee. They're good at striking deals like this and unwitting Councils don't spot the issues. So, they get the contract and then stick to it to the letter. Everything is too much trouble and certain things you thought were part of the agreement turn out not to be - the small print is everything. So, the Council ends up buying back the extras it thought were part of the deal. There is little cooperation, there is no real interest in providing service, just making money - the profit angle that does not exist within a public 'not for profit' organisation. The Council ends up paying to employ people to 'manage' the relationship. When they TUPE transfer the Council staff too, it makes it virtually impossible to bring the service back inside the remit of the Council if the Capita arrangement is considered unworkable because there are no staff left capable of doing it. I truly believe that local public services should be deliverable by public staff at better costs than a private enterprise. This of course is what SHOULD be possible, but as the Council has become more and more outdated of course, it's ability to run those services diminishes and opens the door for private enterprises to turn up with 'solutions'. Fundamentally ALL public services should only be run for the benefit of the public they serve. Private enterprises care very little about service, despite the usual rhetoric, and their sole aim is to make money. On this fundamental basis they must surely be more expensive as a solution? Only where their service provision is considered relative to an out of touch, poorly organised alternative does it look feasible. In the short term it ends up showing a saving on the bottom line. In the long term it doesn't. George, why do you think that outsourcing is a good idea? I am interested to know. The Grinch

5:14pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Bring in contractors cheep my Arse!
Bring in contractors cheep my Arse! Fatty x Ford Worker

5:30pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Plum Pudding says...

The Grinch wrote:
George4th wrote:
The Grinch wrote: As I commented on another post and in conjunction with some of the comments made here, there is only so much money in the 'pot' and the sad reality is that the Council is an archaic organisation that needs modernising, updating and stripping of huge sections of 'dead wood'. Believe me, there are comparatively high salaries being paid to staff and areas that probably add little value. Outsourcing doesn't work and should never be used for the provision of public services. A more streamlined, agile, modern and effective Council would be able to run many of the outsourced services - without of course the profit angle that is required in private enterprise. In today's world archaic councils are doomed and as FoysCornerBoy comments above, the future is bleak. A new business model is required. The answer definitely is NOT to sell the art to raise more money to plough into an outdated organisation. I agree that the art should be sold as it serves no purpose locked up in a store room, but the money should absolutely not then be fed back into a failed system. Remodel the system, reassess the workforce, dump outdated services and then sell the art to invest in the new way forward. If this doesn't happen then there will continue to be job losses, cuts and services withdrawn in a 'trickle' effect over the coming months and years. Unfortunately it is likely that the cuts will come in staff and areas of least resistence rather than staff and areas where it is merited. The pragmatic view is surely now to make even tougher decisions for the greater long term good.
I agree with most of what you say. Big long standing Public organisations become inefficient over time (it happened to some in the Private sector many years ago). The NHS is the classic example and needs a radical overhaul. (One area I disagree with you is outsourcing!)
George,

I think that outsourcing (in respect of public services) is one of those concepts that looks good on paper but always ends in tears.

Take the Capita arrangement for instance. Capita are an aggressive profit making organisation. They offer to provide certain services for a fee. They're good at striking deals like this and unwitting Councils don't spot the issues. So, they get the contract and then stick to it to the letter. Everything is too much trouble and certain things you thought were part of the agreement turn out not to be - the small print is everything. So, the Council ends up buying back the extras it thought were part of the deal. There is little cooperation, there is no real interest in providing service, just making money - the profit angle that does not exist within a public 'not for profit' organisation. The Council ends up paying to employ people to 'manage' the relationship. When they TUPE transfer the Council staff too, it makes it virtually impossible to bring the service back inside the remit of the Council if the Capita arrangement is considered unworkable because there are no staff left capable of doing it.

I truly believe that local public services should be deliverable by public staff at better costs than a private enterprise. This of course is what SHOULD be possible, but as the Council has become more and more outdated of course, it's ability to run those services diminishes and opens the door for private enterprises to turn up with 'solutions'.

Fundamentally ALL public services should only be run for the benefit of the public they serve. Private enterprises care very little about service, despite the usual rhetoric, and their sole aim is to make money. On this fundamental basis they must surely be more expensive as a solution?

Only where their service provision is considered relative to an out of touch, poorly organised alternative does it look feasible. In the short term it ends up showing a saving on the bottom line. In the long term it doesn't.

George, why do you think that outsourcing is a good idea? I am interested to know.
You raise an interesting point. It is my experience that the public sector is incapable of negotiating viable commercial contracts. You only have to look at the grandiose IT projects that have come, and gone. Look at the Ministry of Defence! There are good reasons. Apart from rapidly changing requirements, as priorities, political drivers and circumstances change, the simple fact is that public servants do not have the business acumen as, despite the occasional Professoonal qualification, they are almost always" generalist administrators". If they had any real business acumen, they would have been snapped up by the private sector. That is why there is generally little interchange between the public and private sectors, and despite what is said, the private sector pays a substantial premium for those specific skills. Thus almost invariably businesses have the public sector over a barrel. The main time you see interchange between the public and private sector is when politicians and very high ranking public servants are taken on as advisors or consultants in order to give the business an inside track or to " open doors and pull strings" on their behalf. And don't forget, once a service has been outsourced or privatised, it is either practically or financially impossible to bring it back in house, and that is when being over a barrel becomes very uncomfortable!
[quote][p][bold]The Grinch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Grinch[/bold] wrote: As I commented on another post and in conjunction with some of the comments made here, there is only so much money in the 'pot' and the sad reality is that the Council is an archaic organisation that needs modernising, updating and stripping of huge sections of 'dead wood'. Believe me, there are comparatively high salaries being paid to staff and areas that probably add little value. Outsourcing doesn't work and should never be used for the provision of public services. A more streamlined, agile, modern and effective Council would be able to run many of the outsourced services - without of course the profit angle that is required in private enterprise. In today's world archaic councils are doomed and as FoysCornerBoy comments above, the future is bleak. A new business model is required. The answer definitely is NOT to sell the art to raise more money to plough into an outdated organisation. I agree that the art should be sold as it serves no purpose locked up in a store room, but the money should absolutely not then be fed back into a failed system. Remodel the system, reassess the workforce, dump outdated services and then sell the art to invest in the new way forward. If this doesn't happen then there will continue to be job losses, cuts and services withdrawn in a 'trickle' effect over the coming months and years. Unfortunately it is likely that the cuts will come in staff and areas of least resistence rather than staff and areas where it is merited. The pragmatic view is surely now to make even tougher decisions for the greater long term good.[/p][/quote]I agree with most of what you say. Big long standing Public organisations become inefficient over time (it happened to some in the Private sector many years ago). The NHS is the classic example and needs a radical overhaul. (One area I disagree with you is outsourcing!)[/p][/quote]George, I think that outsourcing (in respect of public services) is one of those concepts that looks good on paper but always ends in tears. Take the Capita arrangement for instance. Capita are an aggressive profit making organisation. They offer to provide certain services for a fee. They're good at striking deals like this and unwitting Councils don't spot the issues. So, they get the contract and then stick to it to the letter. Everything is too much trouble and certain things you thought were part of the agreement turn out not to be - the small print is everything. So, the Council ends up buying back the extras it thought were part of the deal. There is little cooperation, there is no real interest in providing service, just making money - the profit angle that does not exist within a public 'not for profit' organisation. The Council ends up paying to employ people to 'manage' the relationship. When they TUPE transfer the Council staff too, it makes it virtually impossible to bring the service back inside the remit of the Council if the Capita arrangement is considered unworkable because there are no staff left capable of doing it. I truly believe that local public services should be deliverable by public staff at better costs than a private enterprise. This of course is what SHOULD be possible, but as the Council has become more and more outdated of course, it's ability to run those services diminishes and opens the door for private enterprises to turn up with 'solutions'. Fundamentally ALL public services should only be run for the benefit of the public they serve. Private enterprises care very little about service, despite the usual rhetoric, and their sole aim is to make money. On this fundamental basis they must surely be more expensive as a solution? Only where their service provision is considered relative to an out of touch, poorly organised alternative does it look feasible. In the short term it ends up showing a saving on the bottom line. In the long term it doesn't. George, why do you think that outsourcing is a good idea? I am interested to know.[/p][/quote]You raise an interesting point. It is my experience that the public sector is incapable of negotiating viable commercial contracts. You only have to look at the grandiose IT projects that have come, and gone. Look at the Ministry of Defence! There are good reasons. Apart from rapidly changing requirements, as priorities, political drivers and circumstances change, the simple fact is that public servants do not have the business acumen as, despite the occasional Professoonal qualification, they are almost always" generalist administrators". If they had any real business acumen, they would have been snapped up by the private sector. That is why there is generally little interchange between the public and private sectors, and despite what is said, the private sector pays a substantial premium for those specific skills. Thus almost invariably businesses have the public sector over a barrel. The main time you see interchange between the public and private sector is when politicians and very high ranking public servants are taken on as advisors or consultants in order to give the business an inside track or to " open doors and pull strings" on their behalf. And don't forget, once a service has been outsourced or privatised, it is either practically or financially impossible to bring it back in house, and that is when being over a barrel becomes very uncomfortable! Plum Pudding

5:38pm Tue 13 Nov 12

lovetheladies says...

I'm still annoyed about lazy binmen and no reduction for collection services i paid for and never received!!!
I'm still annoyed about lazy binmen and no reduction for collection services i paid for and never received!!! lovetheladies

5:40pm Tue 13 Nov 12

The Grinch says...

Yes, true!

The Council becomes a sitting duck for sharp practice contract negotiators.

This whole situation is a bit like when one buys a cheap tool because it's up front price looks cheap. However, when the tool fails to work and often breaks quickly, you have to buy another tool - only this time you have even less money to spend because you wasted some on the first tool. So, you buy another cheap tool, which you know will fail but you can't afford anything else. The person selling the cheap tools has you in their clutches (over a barrel). The cycle carries on.
Yes, true! The Council becomes a sitting duck for sharp practice contract negotiators. This whole situation is a bit like when one buys a cheap tool because it's up front price looks cheap. However, when the tool fails to work and often breaks quickly, you have to buy another tool - only this time you have even less money to spend because you wasted some on the first tool. So, you buy another cheap tool, which you know will fail but you can't afford anything else. The person selling the cheap tools has you in their clutches (over a barrel). The cycle carries on. The Grinch

6:46pm Tue 13 Nov 12

aldermoorboy says...

Great news Tucker keeps his job.
More great news all Labour councillors keep their jobs.
Even more great news 2 extra Labour councillors promoted earning an extra £22,000 each year.
Even better news we the tax payer pay Tuckers wages.
Vote Tory in 2014 for a better way forward with honest councillors.
Better still help the Tories on the streets by calling/leafleting etc.
Great news Tucker keeps his job. More great news all Labour councillors keep their jobs. Even more great news 2 extra Labour councillors promoted earning an extra £22,000 each year. Even better news we the tax payer pay Tuckers wages. Vote Tory in 2014 for a better way forward with honest councillors. Better still help the Tories on the streets by calling/leafleting etc. aldermoorboy

7:01pm Tue 13 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

Plum Pudding wrote:
The Grinch wrote:
George4th wrote:
The Grinch wrote: As I commented on another post and in conjunction with some of the comments made here, there is only so much money in the 'pot' and the sad reality is that the Council is an archaic organisation that needs modernising, updating and stripping of huge sections of 'dead wood'. Believe me, there are comparatively high salaries being paid to staff and areas that probably add little value. Outsourcing doesn't work and should never be used for the provision of public services. A more streamlined, agile, modern and effective Council would be able to run many of the outsourced services - without of course the profit angle that is required in private enterprise. In today's world archaic councils are doomed and as FoysCornerBoy comments above, the future is bleak. A new business model is required. The answer definitely is NOT to sell the art to raise more money to plough into an outdated organisation. I agree that the art should be sold as it serves no purpose locked up in a store room, but the money should absolutely not then be fed back into a failed system. Remodel the system, reassess the workforce, dump outdated services and then sell the art to invest in the new way forward. If this doesn't happen then there will continue to be job losses, cuts and services withdrawn in a 'trickle' effect over the coming months and years. Unfortunately it is likely that the cuts will come in staff and areas of least resistence rather than staff and areas where it is merited. The pragmatic view is surely now to make even tougher decisions for the greater long term good.
I agree with most of what you say. Big long standing Public organisations become inefficient over time (it happened to some in the Private sector many years ago). The NHS is the classic example and needs a radical overhaul. (One area I disagree with you is outsourcing!)
George, I think that outsourcing (in respect of public services) is one of those concepts that looks good on paper but always ends in tears. Take the Capita arrangement for instance. Capita are an aggressive profit making organisation. They offer to provide certain services for a fee. They're good at striking deals like this and unwitting Councils don't spot the issues. So, they get the contract and then stick to it to the letter. Everything is too much trouble and certain things you thought were part of the agreement turn out not to be - the small print is everything. So, the Council ends up buying back the extras it thought were part of the deal. There is little cooperation, there is no real interest in providing service, just making money - the profit angle that does not exist within a public 'not for profit' organisation. The Council ends up paying to employ people to 'manage' the relationship. When they TUPE transfer the Council staff too, it makes it virtually impossible to bring the service back inside the remit of the Council if the Capita arrangement is considered unworkable because there are no staff left capable of doing it. I truly believe that local public services should be deliverable by public staff at better costs than a private enterprise. This of course is what SHOULD be possible, but as the Council has become more and more outdated of course, it's ability to run those services diminishes and opens the door for private enterprises to turn up with 'solutions'. Fundamentally ALL public services should only be run for the benefit of the public they serve. Private enterprises care very little about service, despite the usual rhetoric, and their sole aim is to make money. On this fundamental basis they must surely be more expensive as a solution? Only where their service provision is considered relative to an out of touch, poorly organised alternative does it look feasible. In the short term it ends up showing a saving on the bottom line. In the long term it doesn't. George, why do you think that outsourcing is a good idea? I am interested to know.
You raise an interesting point. It is my experience that the public sector is incapable of negotiating viable commercial contracts. You only have to look at the grandiose IT projects that have come, and gone. Look at the Ministry of Defence! There are good reasons. Apart from rapidly changing requirements, as priorities, political drivers and circumstances change, the simple fact is that public servants do not have the business acumen as, despite the occasional Professoonal qualification, they are almost always" generalist administrators". If they had any real business acumen, they would have been snapped up by the private sector. That is why there is generally little interchange between the public and private sectors, and despite what is said, the private sector pays a substantial premium for those specific skills. Thus almost invariably businesses have the public sector over a barrel. The main time you see interchange between the public and private sector is when politicians and very high ranking public servants are taken on as advisors or consultants in order to give the business an inside track or to " open doors and pull strings" on their behalf. And don't forget, once a service has been outsourced or privatised, it is either practically or financially impossible to bring it back in house, and that is when being over a barrel becomes very uncomfortable!
The other problem with outsourcing is negotiating a ten year contract, then, Central Government cutting your budget by a substantial amount. There is little room to renegotiate with Capita so SCC is forced to wield the axe much deeper in other areas. Another contradiction from the Tories, encouragement to outsource everything, then, when rates have been agreed, pull the funding.
[quote][p][bold]Plum Pudding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Grinch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Grinch[/bold] wrote: As I commented on another post and in conjunction with some of the comments made here, there is only so much money in the 'pot' and the sad reality is that the Council is an archaic organisation that needs modernising, updating and stripping of huge sections of 'dead wood'. Believe me, there are comparatively high salaries being paid to staff and areas that probably add little value. Outsourcing doesn't work and should never be used for the provision of public services. A more streamlined, agile, modern and effective Council would be able to run many of the outsourced services - without of course the profit angle that is required in private enterprise. In today's world archaic councils are doomed and as FoysCornerBoy comments above, the future is bleak. A new business model is required. The answer definitely is NOT to sell the art to raise more money to plough into an outdated organisation. I agree that the art should be sold as it serves no purpose locked up in a store room, but the money should absolutely not then be fed back into a failed system. Remodel the system, reassess the workforce, dump outdated services and then sell the art to invest in the new way forward. If this doesn't happen then there will continue to be job losses, cuts and services withdrawn in a 'trickle' effect over the coming months and years. Unfortunately it is likely that the cuts will come in staff and areas of least resistence rather than staff and areas where it is merited. The pragmatic view is surely now to make even tougher decisions for the greater long term good.[/p][/quote]I agree with most of what you say. Big long standing Public organisations become inefficient over time (it happened to some in the Private sector many years ago). The NHS is the classic example and needs a radical overhaul. (One area I disagree with you is outsourcing!)[/p][/quote]George, I think that outsourcing (in respect of public services) is one of those concepts that looks good on paper but always ends in tears. Take the Capita arrangement for instance. Capita are an aggressive profit making organisation. They offer to provide certain services for a fee. They're good at striking deals like this and unwitting Councils don't spot the issues. So, they get the contract and then stick to it to the letter. Everything is too much trouble and certain things you thought were part of the agreement turn out not to be - the small print is everything. So, the Council ends up buying back the extras it thought were part of the deal. There is little cooperation, there is no real interest in providing service, just making money - the profit angle that does not exist within a public 'not for profit' organisation. The Council ends up paying to employ people to 'manage' the relationship. When they TUPE transfer the Council staff too, it makes it virtually impossible to bring the service back inside the remit of the Council if the Capita arrangement is considered unworkable because there are no staff left capable of doing it. I truly believe that local public services should be deliverable by public staff at better costs than a private enterprise. This of course is what SHOULD be possible, but as the Council has become more and more outdated of course, it's ability to run those services diminishes and opens the door for private enterprises to turn up with 'solutions'. Fundamentally ALL public services should only be run for the benefit of the public they serve. Private enterprises care very little about service, despite the usual rhetoric, and their sole aim is to make money. On this fundamental basis they must surely be more expensive as a solution? Only where their service provision is considered relative to an out of touch, poorly organised alternative does it look feasible. In the short term it ends up showing a saving on the bottom line. In the long term it doesn't. George, why do you think that outsourcing is a good idea? I am interested to know.[/p][/quote]You raise an interesting point. It is my experience that the public sector is incapable of negotiating viable commercial contracts. You only have to look at the grandiose IT projects that have come, and gone. Look at the Ministry of Defence! There are good reasons. Apart from rapidly changing requirements, as priorities, political drivers and circumstances change, the simple fact is that public servants do not have the business acumen as, despite the occasional Professoonal qualification, they are almost always" generalist administrators". If they had any real business acumen, they would have been snapped up by the private sector. That is why there is generally little interchange between the public and private sectors, and despite what is said, the private sector pays a substantial premium for those specific skills. Thus almost invariably businesses have the public sector over a barrel. The main time you see interchange between the public and private sector is when politicians and very high ranking public servants are taken on as advisors or consultants in order to give the business an inside track or to " open doors and pull strings" on their behalf. And don't forget, once a service has been outsourced or privatised, it is either practically or financially impossible to bring it back in house, and that is when being over a barrel becomes very uncomfortable![/p][/quote]The other problem with outsourcing is negotiating a ten year contract, then, Central Government cutting your budget by a substantial amount. There is little room to renegotiate with Capita so SCC is forced to wield the axe much deeper in other areas. Another contradiction from the Tories, encouragement to outsource everything, then, when rates have been agreed, pull the funding. thinklikealocal

7:02pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs.
.
The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council.
.
What mugs.
.
Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council.
.
Shameful.
.
Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse.
.
The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it.
.
I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long.
.
I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did.

Why waste £4m on redundancies?

Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job.

But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed.

The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees.

I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good
Strange how we see things so differently.
.
I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments.
.
Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so.
.
Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky.
.
The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs.
.
Lone Ranger,

Its very simple to review what the conservative plans were, and what Williams said when seeking office, and after achieving office.

The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council, and the council workers will rue not standing up to the Unions.

Sadly it was entirely predictable that Labour and the Unions would let them down.
No ... Sadly the only thing that was predictable was the facts.
.
There would have been job losses whoever was in power ..... and more with Smith and Co.
.
It seems strange that you say "The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council" . ....... When all along the voters of Southampton chose to dump Smith and Co .......... NOT because of what Williams had said .... BUT ... because Smith and his merry band were becoming unelectable.
.
Smith was the one who turned employee angainst employee ........ It was Smith who took on the Unions in an attempt to brake them .... and ultimately it was Smith's actions that caused the council workers to strike.
.
Now if you want to start pointing fingers i suggest that you start with the Failed EX leader ....... Perhaps his arrogance and dictitorial attitude was the catalyst for his and his parties downfall
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did. Why waste £4m on redundancies? Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job. But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed. The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees. I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good[/p][/quote]Strange how we see things so differently. . I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments. . Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so. . Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky. . The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs. .[/p][/quote]Lone Ranger, Its very simple to review what the conservative plans were, and what Williams said when seeking office, and after achieving office. The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council, and the council workers will rue not standing up to the Unions. Sadly it was entirely predictable that Labour and the Unions would let them down.[/p][/quote]No ... Sadly the only thing that was predictable was the facts. . There would have been job losses whoever was in power ..... and more with Smith and Co. . It seems strange that you say "The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council" . ....... When all along the voters of Southampton chose to dump Smith and Co .......... NOT because of what Williams had said .... BUT ... because Smith and his merry band were becoming unelectable. . Smith was the one who turned employee angainst employee ........ It was Smith who took on the Unions in an attempt to brake them .... and ultimately it was Smith's actions that caused the council workers to strike. . Now if you want to start pointing fingers i suggest that you start with the Failed EX leader ....... Perhaps his arrogance and dictitorial attitude was the catalyst for his and his parties downfall Lone Ranger.

7:03pm Tue 13 Nov 12

shirley-bill says...

MERCHANTS QUARTER .SOTON,, no waste pick up for 2 weeks now .
BANISTER GATE SOTON , no waste pick up for 2 weeks now.
ST ANNES GATE , SOTON , no waste pick up for 2 weeks now .
LES LITTLE southampton city council , will not reply to phone calls.
AND
yet the council say we still have weekly waste pick up , well the hell we do . we pay for a service and the council do not do it .
if the council can not do the job THEN sub it out.......
MERCHANTS QUARTER .SOTON,, no waste pick up for 2 weeks now . BANISTER GATE SOTON , no waste pick up for 2 weeks now. ST ANNES GATE , SOTON , no waste pick up for 2 weeks now . LES LITTLE southampton city council , will not reply to phone calls. AND yet the council say we still have weekly waste pick up , well the hell we do . we pay for a service and the council do not do it . if the council can not do the job THEN sub it out....... shirley-bill

7:03pm Tue 13 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Great news Tucker keeps his job. More great news all Labour councillors keep their jobs. Even more great news 2 extra Labour councillors promoted earning an extra £22,000 each year. Even better news we the tax payer pay Tuckers wages. Vote Tory in 2014 for a better way forward with honest councillors. Better still help the Tories on the streets by calling/leafleting etc.
Stop repeating posts, if you don't have anything new to say then........
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Great news Tucker keeps his job. More great news all Labour councillors keep their jobs. Even more great news 2 extra Labour councillors promoted earning an extra £22,000 each year. Even better news we the tax payer pay Tuckers wages. Vote Tory in 2014 for a better way forward with honest councillors. Better still help the Tories on the streets by calling/leafleting etc.[/p][/quote]Stop repeating posts, if you don't have anything new to say then........ thinklikealocal

7:04pm Tue 13 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

shirley-bill wrote:
MERCHANTS QUARTER .SOTON,, no waste pick up for 2 weeks now . BANISTER GATE SOTON , no waste pick up for 2 weeks now. ST ANNES GATE , SOTON , no waste pick up for 2 weeks now . LES LITTLE southampton city council , will not reply to phone calls. AND yet the council say we still have weekly waste pick up , well the hell we do . we pay for a service and the council do not do it . if the council can not do the job THEN sub it out.......
Its called practice for fortnightly collections.
[quote][p][bold]shirley-bill[/bold] wrote: MERCHANTS QUARTER .SOTON,, no waste pick up for 2 weeks now . BANISTER GATE SOTON , no waste pick up for 2 weeks now. ST ANNES GATE , SOTON , no waste pick up for 2 weeks now . LES LITTLE southampton city council , will not reply to phone calls. AND yet the council say we still have weekly waste pick up , well the hell we do . we pay for a service and the council do not do it . if the council can not do the job THEN sub it out.......[/p][/quote]Its called practice for fortnightly collections. thinklikealocal

7:16pm Tue 13 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_ together wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_ together wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .
I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did. Why waste £4m on redundancies? Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job. But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed. The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees. I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good
Strange how we see things so differently. . I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments. . Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so. . Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky. . The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs. .
Lone Ranger, Its very simple to review what the conservative plans were, and what Williams said when seeking office, and after achieving office. The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council, and the council workers will rue not standing up to the Unions. Sadly it was entirely predictable that Labour and the Unions would let them down.
No ... Sadly the only thing that was predictable was the facts. . There would have been job losses whoever was in power ..... and more with Smith and Co. . It seems strange that you say "The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council" . ....... When all along the voters of Southampton chose to dump Smith and Co .......... NOT because of what Williams had said .... BUT ... because Smith and his merry band were becoming unelectable. . Smith was the one who turned employee angainst employee ........ It was Smith who took on the Unions in an attempt to brake them .... and ultimately it was Smith's actions that caused the council workers to strike. . Now if you want to start pointing fingers i suggest that you start with the Failed EX leader ....... Perhaps his arrogance and dictitorial attitude was the catalyst for his and his parties downfall
Sotonians - "why waste £4m on redundancies?" Ask Royston Smith how much his policy of refundancies cost the Council in the last 30 months. I'll give you an example, Lorraine Brown, firmer head if Environment. Very talented and well respected. Jumped ship cos she couldn't stand the thought of working with Royston and the Chief Exec. Cost of employing her circa £130k per annum. Redundancy cost £330k. Replacement was to be 0.5 share with iow, cost, circa £65k. Net result, 5 years to reap any financial saving whilst losing a great leader who was committed to Southampton and gaining, well who knows?......
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did. Why waste £4m on redundancies? Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job. But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed. The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees. I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good[/p][/quote]Strange how we see things so differently. . I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments. . Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so. . Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky. . The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs. .[/p][/quote]Lone Ranger, Its very simple to review what the conservative plans were, and what Williams said when seeking office, and after achieving office. The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council, and the council workers will rue not standing up to the Unions. Sadly it was entirely predictable that Labour and the Unions would let them down.[/p][/quote]No ... Sadly the only thing that was predictable was the facts. . There would have been job losses whoever was in power ..... and more with Smith and Co. . It seems strange that you say "The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council" . ....... When all along the voters of Southampton chose to dump Smith and Co .......... NOT because of what Williams had said .... BUT ... because Smith and his merry band were becoming unelectable. . Smith was the one who turned employee angainst employee ........ It was Smith who took on the Unions in an attempt to brake them .... and ultimately it was Smith's actions that caused the council workers to strike. . Now if you want to start pointing fingers i suggest that you start with the Failed EX leader ....... Perhaps his arrogance and dictitorial attitude was the catalyst for his and his parties downfall[/p][/quote]Sotonians - "why waste £4m on redundancies?" Ask Royston Smith how much his policy of refundancies cost the Council in the last 30 months. I'll give you an example, Lorraine Brown, firmer head if Environment. Very talented and well respected. Jumped ship cos she couldn't stand the thought of working with Royston and the Chief Exec. Cost of employing her circa £130k per annum. Redundancy cost £330k. Replacement was to be 0.5 share with iow, cost, circa £65k. Net result, 5 years to reap any financial saving whilst losing a great leader who was committed to Southampton and gaining, well who knows?...... thinklikealocal

7:41pm Tue 13 Nov 12

let'schangeit says...

Central Government cuts to grants to local authorities is Westminster passing the buck to hit people where they are most vulnerable and let L.A's deal with the flack and the bad public reaction.
There is enough wealth in this country to recoup public spending shortfalls from those that can afford it.
Southampton City Council are being forced to make up the shortfall in the council tax budget by decreasing council tax benefit. This will add financial strain to those already on the breadline and there is nothing else that can be done...apparently (increasing council tax costs for the more affluent to help address this shortfall is of course sacrosanct - what happened to WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER). Like a lot of benefit changes this does not affect people of pensionable age. The wealthy and the old are prolific voters. The poor and needy are not so much and should be supported to stand up and be counted as they are the ones suffering the most. People are being asked to give their views on the council tax proposals on the Council Website. If there is no comment then they will say there was no resistance to it. If we are not up to taking to the streets we can still make our views heard digitly at least...it's something. Unfortunately those most affected are the least able to voice their views.
Central Government cuts to grants to local authorities is Westminster passing the buck to hit people where they are most vulnerable and let L.A's deal with the flack and the bad public reaction. There is enough wealth in this country to recoup public spending shortfalls from those that can afford it. Southampton City Council are being forced to make up the shortfall in the council tax budget by decreasing council tax benefit. This will add financial strain to those already on the breadline and there is nothing else that can be done...apparently (increasing council tax costs for the more affluent to help address this shortfall is of course sacrosanct - what happened to WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER). Like a lot of benefit changes this does not affect people of pensionable age. The wealthy and the old are prolific voters. The poor and needy are not so much and should be supported to stand up and be counted as they are the ones suffering the most. People are being asked to give their views on the council tax proposals on the Council Website. If there is no comment then they will say there was no resistance to it. If we are not up to taking to the streets we can still make our views heard digitly at least...it's something. Unfortunately those most affected are the least able to voice their views. let'schangeit

8:35pm Tue 13 Nov 12

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?
Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.
Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?
I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.
Okay when I worked at BAT I was on a higher rate of pay as I was trained up to run High speed machines this worked out to be £20 a week or £80 a month.
when the company decided to get rid of jobs & introduce team work I took on extra work or lost my job or in their words I gave up my job.
The company wanted more to go but the Unions negotiated a deal where we could save jobs but lose our High speed wage so cutting my pay to keep people in work.
Later on we were in a battle or so we thought with Germany so many of us who could earn £200 for an eight hour overtime shift gave up that pay to bring down our production costs to save our jobs we also went from double time to time & a Half we also0 lost many of the perks we had secured like service pay to secure our jobs so sorry about my rant but I never wanted to see any of my work colleagues lose their jobs can you say the same?
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?[/p][/quote]Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.[/p][/quote]Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?[/p][/quote]I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.[/p][/quote]Okay when I worked at BAT I was on a higher rate of pay as I was trained up to run High speed machines this worked out to be £20 a week or £80 a month. when the company decided to get rid of jobs & introduce team work I took on extra work or lost my job or in their words I gave up my job. The company wanted more to go but the Unions negotiated a deal where we could save jobs but lose our High speed wage so cutting my pay to keep people in work. Later on we were in a battle or so we thought with Germany so many of us who could earn £200 for an eight hour overtime shift gave up that pay to bring down our production costs to save our jobs we also went from double time to time & a Half we also0 lost many of the perks we had secured like service pay to secure our jobs so sorry about my rant but I never wanted to see any of my work colleagues lose their jobs can you say the same? loosehead

8:47pm Tue 13 Nov 12

loosehead says...

Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories?
Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know?
Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go?
Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies?
He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it?
So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council?
I hope these workers find work,
Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie?
Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant?
3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced?
Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers?
No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?
Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that? loosehead

9:51pm Tue 13 Nov 12

derek james says...

council tax doubled under liebour no doubt contributing to the intake of "climate change coordinators and other meaningless jobs advertised for councils , as someone else posted we have millions of immigrants from eastern europe that we "need" taking some of the jobs these ex council staff could do (i have met many they don't take all the rubbish jobs). vote lib lab con at the next election and you get more of the same sh"t
council tax doubled under liebour no doubt contributing to the intake of "climate change coordinators and other meaningless jobs advertised for councils , as someone else posted we have millions of immigrants from eastern europe that we "need" taking some of the jobs these ex council staff could do (i have met many they don't take all the rubbish jobs). vote lib lab con at the next election and you get more of the same sh"t derek james

10:09pm Tue 13 Nov 12

The Wickham Man says...

one in a million wrote:
"HORRENDOUS - fall out from worst cuts EVER"

What a headline!
Yes. It's another typical overblown overreacting precious public sector hyperbole. These aren't even the worst job cuts in this city this week FFS - Ford closing down is far more damaging, but of course that is private sector so it doesn't count I suppose?
The bloated self pitying inneficient union riddled public sector broom pushing non jobs are being thinned, that's all, and yet it's the end of the world.
Here's an idea. Let's do away with the entire local government tier - inept councillors, overpaid risk averse middle managers and executives retiring at 50 on gold plated pensions the private sector workers could only dream about, and all paid for by the same private sector workers whose pensions have just been slashed yet again!
[quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: "HORRENDOUS - fall out from worst cuts EVER" What a headline![/p][/quote]Yes. It's another typical overblown overreacting precious public sector hyperbole. These aren't even the worst job cuts in this city this week FFS - Ford closing down is far more damaging, but of course that is private sector so it doesn't count I suppose? The bloated self pitying inneficient union riddled public sector broom pushing non jobs are being thinned, that's all, and yet it's the end of the world. Here's an idea. Let's do away with the entire local government tier - inept councillors, overpaid risk averse middle managers and executives retiring at 50 on gold plated pensions the private sector workers could only dream about, and all paid for by the same private sector workers whose pensions have just been slashed yet again! The Wickham Man

11:16pm Tue 13 Nov 12

sass says...

Plum Pudding wrote:
We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services. If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...
"Democracy is the worst possible form of government, apart from all the rest"

Sir Winston Churchill.
[quote][p][bold]Plum Pudding[/bold] wrote: We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services. If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...[/p][/quote]"Democracy is the worst possible form of government, apart from all the rest" Sir Winston Churchill. sass

11:22pm Tue 13 Nov 12

sass says...

lovetheladies wrote:
I'm still annoyed about lazy binmen and no reduction for collection services i paid for and never received!!!
Do you still have your rubbish?
[quote][p][bold]lovetheladies[/bold] wrote: I'm still annoyed about lazy binmen and no reduction for collection services i paid for and never received!!![/p][/quote]Do you still have your rubbish? sass

11:23pm Tue 13 Nov 12

sass says...

Unemployment isn't working!
Unemployment isn't working! sass

6:43am Wed 14 Nov 12

Cyber__Fug says...

southy says...
2:11pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Needs Budget program as been put forward by the Socialist party here in Southampton for the last 3 to 4 years.

I have gone through the manifestos on both the TUSC & the socialist websites and there is no mention of it.

Please could you send me the link as I would be interested to see it !
southy says... 2:11pm Tue 13 Nov 12 Needs Budget program as been put forward by the Socialist party here in Southampton for the last 3 to 4 years. I have gone through the manifestos on both the TUSC & the socialist websites and there is no mention of it. Please could you send me the link as I would be interested to see it ! Cyber__Fug

7:07am Wed 14 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?
Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.
Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?
I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.
Okay when I worked at BAT I was on a higher rate of pay as I was trained up to run High speed machines this worked out to be £20 a week or £80 a month. when the company decided to get rid of jobs & introduce team work I took on extra work or lost my job or in their words I gave up my job. The company wanted more to go but the Unions negotiated a deal where we could save jobs but lose our High speed wage so cutting my pay to keep people in work. Later on we were in a battle or so we thought with Germany so many of us who could earn £200 for an eight hour overtime shift gave up that pay to bring down our production costs to save our jobs we also went from double time to time & a Half we also0 lost many of the perks we had secured like service pay to secure our jobs so sorry about my rant but I never wanted to see any of my work colleagues lose their jobs can you say the same?
Well Looselips, you've very nicely proved my point about comparing the public and private sectors. £200 overtime for an 8 hour shift. Something we can only dream about at SCC and I expect your talking about quite some time ago so even higher value in todays money. Do you think staff at SCC haven't had to change duties, take on more work? BAT dud one thing - make fags. SCC provides hundreds if services and is very complex, bin men to degree educated social workers, accountants, town planners. When you talk about job losses, its not a simple 5 per cent of that shift going. So as a pensioner (i guess) when was your pension cut to help with this economic crisis? Thought not.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?[/p][/quote]Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.[/p][/quote]Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?[/p][/quote]I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.[/p][/quote]Okay when I worked at BAT I was on a higher rate of pay as I was trained up to run High speed machines this worked out to be £20 a week or £80 a month. when the company decided to get rid of jobs & introduce team work I took on extra work or lost my job or in their words I gave up my job. The company wanted more to go but the Unions negotiated a deal where we could save jobs but lose our High speed wage so cutting my pay to keep people in work. Later on we were in a battle or so we thought with Germany so many of us who could earn £200 for an eight hour overtime shift gave up that pay to bring down our production costs to save our jobs we also went from double time to time & a Half we also0 lost many of the perks we had secured like service pay to secure our jobs so sorry about my rant but I never wanted to see any of my work colleagues lose their jobs can you say the same?[/p][/quote]Well Looselips, you've very nicely proved my point about comparing the public and private sectors. £200 overtime for an 8 hour shift. Something we can only dream about at SCC and I expect your talking about quite some time ago so even higher value in todays money. Do you think staff at SCC haven't had to change duties, take on more work? BAT dud one thing - make fags. SCC provides hundreds if services and is very complex, bin men to degree educated social workers, accountants, town planners. When you talk about job losses, its not a simple 5 per cent of that shift going. So as a pensioner (i guess) when was your pension cut to help with this economic crisis? Thought not. thinklikealocal

7:10am Wed 14 Nov 12

SotonNorth says...

People with half a brain cell could see this coming. The Conservative administration tried restricting job cuts through some pay cuts. We had the strikes, Labour ousted the Conservatives, and now lots of people have lost their source of income altogether. This was all the council workers and unions doing.
People with half a brain cell could see this coming. The Conservative administration tried restricting job cuts through some pay cuts. We had the strikes, Labour ousted the Conservatives, and now lots of people have lost their source of income altogether. This was all the council workers and unions doing. SotonNorth

7:24am Wed 14 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
one in a million wrote: "HORRENDOUS - fall out from worst cuts EVER" What a headline!
Yes. It's another typical overblown overreacting precious public sector hyperbole. These aren't even the worst job cuts in this city this week FFS - Ford closing down is far more damaging, but of course that is private sector so it doesn't count I suppose? The bloated self pitying inneficient union riddled public sector broom pushing non jobs are being thinned, that's all, and yet it's the end of the world. Here's an idea. Let's do away with the entire local government tier - inept councillors, overpaid risk averse middle managers and executives retiring at 50 on gold plated pensions the private sector workers could only dream about, and all paid for by the same private sector workers whose pensions have just been slashed yet again!
Firstly, SCC and its employees have no control over what the Echo print so how can you blame them for the headline? Secondly, no one can legally be paid a pension in this country until they are 55.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: "HORRENDOUS - fall out from worst cuts EVER" What a headline![/p][/quote]Yes. It's another typical overblown overreacting precious public sector hyperbole. These aren't even the worst job cuts in this city this week FFS - Ford closing down is far more damaging, but of course that is private sector so it doesn't count I suppose? The bloated self pitying inneficient union riddled public sector broom pushing non jobs are being thinned, that's all, and yet it's the end of the world. Here's an idea. Let's do away with the entire local government tier - inept councillors, overpaid risk averse middle managers and executives retiring at 50 on gold plated pensions the private sector workers could only dream about, and all paid for by the same private sector workers whose pensions have just been slashed yet again![/p][/quote]Firstly, SCC and its employees have no control over what the Echo print so how can you blame them for the headline? Secondly, no one can legally be paid a pension in this country until they are 55. thinklikealocal

7:25am Wed 14 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

SotonNorth wrote:
People with half a brain cell could see this coming. The Conservative administration tried restricting job cuts through some pay cuts. We had the strikes, Labour ousted the Conservatives, and now lots of people have lost their source of income altogether. This was all the council workers and unions doing.
Clearly you are one of those people (by your own admission).
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote: People with half a brain cell could see this coming. The Conservative administration tried restricting job cuts through some pay cuts. We had the strikes, Labour ousted the Conservatives, and now lots of people have lost their source of income altogether. This was all the council workers and unions doing.[/p][/quote]Clearly you are one of those people (by your own admission). thinklikealocal

7:32am Wed 14 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?
Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?[/p][/quote]Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you. thinklikealocal

7:40am Wed 14 Nov 12

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?
Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.
Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?
I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.
Okay when I worked at BAT I was on a higher rate of pay as I was trained up to run High speed machines this worked out to be £20 a week or £80 a month. when the company decided to get rid of jobs & introduce team work I took on extra work or lost my job or in their words I gave up my job. The company wanted more to go but the Unions negotiated a deal where we could save jobs but lose our High speed wage so cutting my pay to keep people in work. Later on we were in a battle or so we thought with Germany so many of us who could earn £200 for an eight hour overtime shift gave up that pay to bring down our production costs to save our jobs we also went from double time to time & a Half we also0 lost many of the perks we had secured like service pay to secure our jobs so sorry about my rant but I never wanted to see any of my work colleagues lose their jobs can you say the same?
Well Looselips, you've very nicely proved my point about comparing the public and private sectors. £200 overtime for an 8 hour shift. Something we can only dream about at SCC and I expect your talking about quite some time ago so even higher value in todays money. Do you think staff at SCC haven't had to change duties, take on more work? BAT dud one thing - make fags. SCC provides hundreds if services and is very complex, bin men to degree educated social workers, accountants, town planners. When you talk about job losses, its not a simple 5 per cent of that shift going. So as a pensioner (i guess) when was your pension cut to help with this economic crisis? Thought not.
You asked me not to rant I didn't you then come on here slating what I earnt in the private sector?
I was on night shift which if you didn't realise is normally paid at a higher rate.
To cover a huge order for China we were asked to work every hour we could or lose the order & possibly our jobs.
On a Monday I'd go in at 06-00am until 12-00 then go home go back in at 18-00hrs work until 06-00 some times working on until 08-00 I worked myself until my body said enough's enough I'd give up my weekends to work would you,do you?
You had the chance to stop this by accepting the cuts but you oh! YOU didn't care about your fellow workers but you did care about your wages .
Oh! when I was made redundant I had to wait a year & at 50 I received my company pension,
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?[/p][/quote]Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.[/p][/quote]Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?[/p][/quote]I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.[/p][/quote]Okay when I worked at BAT I was on a higher rate of pay as I was trained up to run High speed machines this worked out to be £20 a week or £80 a month. when the company decided to get rid of jobs & introduce team work I took on extra work or lost my job or in their words I gave up my job. The company wanted more to go but the Unions negotiated a deal where we could save jobs but lose our High speed wage so cutting my pay to keep people in work. Later on we were in a battle or so we thought with Germany so many of us who could earn £200 for an eight hour overtime shift gave up that pay to bring down our production costs to save our jobs we also went from double time to time & a Half we also0 lost many of the perks we had secured like service pay to secure our jobs so sorry about my rant but I never wanted to see any of my work colleagues lose their jobs can you say the same?[/p][/quote]Well Looselips, you've very nicely proved my point about comparing the public and private sectors. £200 overtime for an 8 hour shift. Something we can only dream about at SCC and I expect your talking about quite some time ago so even higher value in todays money. Do you think staff at SCC haven't had to change duties, take on more work? BAT dud one thing - make fags. SCC provides hundreds if services and is very complex, bin men to degree educated social workers, accountants, town planners. When you talk about job losses, its not a simple 5 per cent of that shift going. So as a pensioner (i guess) when was your pension cut to help with this economic crisis? Thought not.[/p][/quote]You asked me not to rant I didn't you then come on here slating what I earnt in the private sector? I was on night shift which if you didn't realise is normally paid at a higher rate. To cover a huge order for China we were asked to work every hour we could or lose the order & possibly our jobs. On a Monday I'd go in at 06-00am until 12-00 then go home go back in at 18-00hrs work until 06-00 some times working on until 08-00 I worked myself until my body said enough's enough I'd give up my weekends to work would you,do you? You had the chance to stop this by accepting the cuts but you oh! YOU didn't care about your fellow workers but you did care about your wages . Oh! when I was made redundant I had to wait a year & at 50 I received my company pension, loosehead

7:46am Wed 14 Nov 12

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?
Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.
I luse to like debating with you but like some of the other left wing posters on here when you know you've been made to look stupid by this council & the Unions instead of admitting it & attacking them you attack people like me who've been telling the truth all along why?
Ranting? Lying? is that the best defence you have to offer for this disastrous council?
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?[/p][/quote]Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.[/p][/quote]I luse to like debating with you but like some of the other left wing posters on here when you know you've been made to look stupid by this council & the Unions instead of admitting it & attacking them you attack people like me who've been telling the truth all along why? Ranting? Lying? is that the best defence you have to offer for this disastrous council? loosehead

7:49am Wed 14 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?
Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.
Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?
I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.
Okay when I worked at BAT I was on a higher rate of pay as I was trained up to run High speed machines this worked out to be £20 a week or £80 a month. when the company decided to get rid of jobs & introduce team work I took on extra work or lost my job or in their words I gave up my job. The company wanted more to go but the Unions negotiated a deal where we could save jobs but lose our High speed wage so cutting my pay to keep people in work. Later on we were in a battle or so we thought with Germany so many of us who could earn £200 for an eight hour overtime shift gave up that pay to bring down our production costs to save our jobs we also went from double time to time & a Half we also0 lost many of the perks we had secured like service pay to secure our jobs so sorry about my rant but I never wanted to see any of my work colleagues lose their jobs can you say the same?
Well Looselips, you've very nicely proved my point about comparing the public and private sectors. £200 overtime for an 8 hour shift. Something we can only dream about at SCC and I expect your talking about quite some time ago so even higher value in todays money. Do you think staff at SCC haven't had to change duties, take on more work? BAT dud one thing - make fags. SCC provides hundreds if services and is very complex, bin men to degree educated social workers, accountants, town planners. When you talk about job losses, its not a simple 5 per cent of that shift going. So as a pensioner (i guess) when was your pension cut to help with this economic crisis? Thought not.
You asked me not to rant I didn't you then come on here slating what I earnt in the private sector? I was on night shift which if you didn't realise is normally paid at a higher rate. To cover a huge order for China we were asked to work every hour we could or lose the order & possibly our jobs. On a Monday I'd go in at 06-00am until 12-00 then go home go back in at 18-00hrs work until 06-00 some times working on until 08-00 I worked myself until my body said enough's enough I'd give up my weekends to work would you,do you? You had the chance to stop this by accepting the cuts but you oh! YOU didn't care about your fellow workers but you did care about your wages . Oh! when I was made redundant I had to wait a year & at 50 I received my company pension,
You have failed to take on board a single thing I said about the difference between BAT and SCC. I suspect it doesn't suit your argument. Yes, I work many hours that are outside of my normal contracted hours, including unsociable hours. I receive no financial compensation for this. So you hot a redundancy package at 49 and a pension at 50. Well done you. SCC staff will have to wait many more years for their pension. Please answer the question - has your pension been cut to help with the economic crisis?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?[/p][/quote]Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.[/p][/quote]Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?[/p][/quote]I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.[/p][/quote]Okay when I worked at BAT I was on a higher rate of pay as I was trained up to run High speed machines this worked out to be £20 a week or £80 a month. when the company decided to get rid of jobs & introduce team work I took on extra work or lost my job or in their words I gave up my job. The company wanted more to go but the Unions negotiated a deal where we could save jobs but lose our High speed wage so cutting my pay to keep people in work. Later on we were in a battle or so we thought with Germany so many of us who could earn £200 for an eight hour overtime shift gave up that pay to bring down our production costs to save our jobs we also went from double time to time & a Half we also0 lost many of the perks we had secured like service pay to secure our jobs so sorry about my rant but I never wanted to see any of my work colleagues lose their jobs can you say the same?[/p][/quote]Well Looselips, you've very nicely proved my point about comparing the public and private sectors. £200 overtime for an 8 hour shift. Something we can only dream about at SCC and I expect your talking about quite some time ago so even higher value in todays money. Do you think staff at SCC haven't had to change duties, take on more work? BAT dud one thing - make fags. SCC provides hundreds if services and is very complex, bin men to degree educated social workers, accountants, town planners. When you talk about job losses, its not a simple 5 per cent of that shift going. So as a pensioner (i guess) when was your pension cut to help with this economic crisis? Thought not.[/p][/quote]You asked me not to rant I didn't you then come on here slating what I earnt in the private sector? I was on night shift which if you didn't realise is normally paid at a higher rate. To cover a huge order for China we were asked to work every hour we could or lose the order & possibly our jobs. On a Monday I'd go in at 06-00am until 12-00 then go home go back in at 18-00hrs work until 06-00 some times working on until 08-00 I worked myself until my body said enough's enough I'd give up my weekends to work would you,do you? You had the chance to stop this by accepting the cuts but you oh! YOU didn't care about your fellow workers but you did care about your wages . Oh! when I was made redundant I had to wait a year & at 50 I received my company pension,[/p][/quote]You have failed to take on board a single thing I said about the difference between BAT and SCC. I suspect it doesn't suit your argument. Yes, I work many hours that are outside of my normal contracted hours, including unsociable hours. I receive no financial compensation for this. So you hot a redundancy package at 49 and a pension at 50. Well done you. SCC staff will have to wait many more years for their pension. Please answer the question - has your pension been cut to help with the economic crisis? thinklikealocal

7:53am Wed 14 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote: Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?
Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.
I luse to like debating with you but like some of the other left wing posters on here when you know you've been made to look stupid by this council & the Unions instead of admitting it & attacking them you attack people like me who've been telling the truth all along why? Ranting? Lying? is that the best defence you have to offer for this disastrous council?
Contrary to what your mission is, you are a terrible advert for the Tories. Clearly you do not respect peoples right to their own opinion and determination (if it doesn't match your version of how things should be). You din't work for SCC, you're not being made redundant, butt (excuse the pun) out.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?[/p][/quote]Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.[/p][/quote]I luse to like debating with you but like some of the other left wing posters on here when you know you've been made to look stupid by this council & the Unions instead of admitting it & attacking them you attack people like me who've been telling the truth all along why? Ranting? Lying? is that the best defence you have to offer for this disastrous council?[/p][/quote]Contrary to what your mission is, you are a terrible advert for the Tories. Clearly you do not respect peoples right to their own opinion and determination (if it doesn't match your version of how things should be). You din't work for SCC, you're not being made redundant, butt (excuse the pun) out. thinklikealocal

9:00am Wed 14 Nov 12

SaintM says...

Well said 'thinklikealoca;'. I am fed up with thhe same idiots who post derogatory comments against anyone who disagree with their political agenda. The council should not be run as a political tool, it should be run for the people. We do not need politicians, councillors. We already have staff doing the work so let them get on with it. There is plenty of waste in this council led debacle but they can not see it. Th enumber of council men standing in 3 vans outside places etc, council contracts to capita, balfour beattie were a waste that the managers told the council not to enter but no doubt they would lose their backhander fees.The councillors have their own agenda and its not for our benifit so get rid of them.I could easily run the council free of political interferrance and cut waste, its not hard, they try to pretend it is.
Well said 'thinklikealoca;'. I am fed up with thhe same idiots who post derogatory comments against anyone who disagree with their political agenda. The council should not be run as a political tool, it should be run for the people. We do not need politicians, councillors. We already have staff doing the work so let them get on with it. There is plenty of waste in this council led debacle but they can not see it. Th enumber of council men standing in 3 vans outside places etc, council contracts to capita, balfour beattie were a waste that the managers told the council not to enter but no doubt they would lose their backhander fees.The councillors have their own agenda and its not for our benifit so get rid of them.I could easily run the council free of political interferrance and cut waste, its not hard, they try to pretend it is. SaintM

11:27am Wed 14 Nov 12

george h says...

Plum Pudding wrote:
We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services.

If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...
Agreed. But what took you so long?
[quote][p][bold]Plum Pudding[/bold] wrote: We elect local councillors to represent us and to run our local services, we also elect our MPs to represent us and to run central government and national services. If we have a truly democratic society, how is it that as a member of the electorate, I feel utterly unrepresented and completely without influence? Neither organisation does what I want, what I need or what I apparently voted for! It was ever thus and as I enter retirement having worked all my life, I wonder if "democracy" is all that it is cracked up to be...[/p][/quote]Agreed. But what took you so long? george h

11:42am Wed 14 Nov 12

misbehaving says...

SaintM wrote:
Well said 'thinklikealoca;'. I am fed up with thhe same idiots who post derogatory comments against anyone who disagree with their political agenda. The council should not be run as a political tool, it should be run for the people. We do not need politicians, councillors. We already have staff doing the work so let them get on with it. There is plenty of waste in this council led debacle but they can not see it. Th enumber of council men standing in 3 vans outside places etc, council contracts to capita, balfour beattie were a waste that the managers told the council not to enter but no doubt they would lose their backhander fees.The councillors have their own agenda and its not for our benifit so get rid of them.I could easily run the council free of political interferrance and cut waste, its not hard, they try to pretend it is.
then stand for council
[quote][p][bold]SaintM[/bold] wrote: Well said 'thinklikealoca;'. I am fed up with thhe same idiots who post derogatory comments against anyone who disagree with their political agenda. The council should not be run as a political tool, it should be run for the people. We do not need politicians, councillors. We already have staff doing the work so let them get on with it. There is plenty of waste in this council led debacle but they can not see it. Th enumber of council men standing in 3 vans outside places etc, council contracts to capita, balfour beattie were a waste that the managers told the council not to enter but no doubt they would lose their backhander fees.The councillors have their own agenda and its not for our benifit so get rid of them.I could easily run the council free of political interferrance and cut waste, its not hard, they try to pretend it is.[/p][/quote]then stand for council misbehaving

11:42am Wed 14 Nov 12

misbehaving says...

SaintM wrote:
Well said 'thinklikealoca;'. I am fed up with thhe same idiots who post derogatory comments against anyone who disagree with their political agenda. The council should not be run as a political tool, it should be run for the people. We do not need politicians, councillors. We already have staff doing the work so let them get on with it. There is plenty of waste in this council led debacle but they can not see it. Th enumber of council men standing in 3 vans outside places etc, council contracts to capita, balfour beattie were a waste that the managers told the council not to enter but no doubt they would lose their backhander fees.The councillors have their own agenda and its not for our benifit so get rid of them.I could easily run the council free of political interferrance and cut waste, its not hard, they try to pretend it is.
then stand for council
[quote][p][bold]SaintM[/bold] wrote: Well said 'thinklikealoca;'. I am fed up with thhe same idiots who post derogatory comments against anyone who disagree with their political agenda. The council should not be run as a political tool, it should be run for the people. We do not need politicians, councillors. We already have staff doing the work so let them get on with it. There is plenty of waste in this council led debacle but they can not see it. Th enumber of council men standing in 3 vans outside places etc, council contracts to capita, balfour beattie were a waste that the managers told the council not to enter but no doubt they would lose their backhander fees.The councillors have their own agenda and its not for our benifit so get rid of them.I could easily run the council free of political interferrance and cut waste, its not hard, they try to pretend it is.[/p][/quote]then stand for council misbehaving

11:42am Wed 14 Nov 12

George4th says...

In the BIG picture, unemployment is down again and we have the most people employed in this country, ever! Add to that the coilition has the deficit reducing, borrowings under control, retaining the Triple A rating, exports to non European countries higher than to Europe etc etc. It's looking a whole lot better than Greece where wages and pensions are down 40%!!!!
In the BIG picture, unemployment is down again and we have the most people employed in this country, ever! Add to that the coilition has the deficit reducing, borrowings under control, retaining the Triple A rating, exports to non European countries higher than to Europe etc etc. It's looking a whole lot better than Greece where wages and pensions are down 40%!!!! George4th

12:19pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Cyber__Fug says...

George4th wrote:
In the BIG picture, unemployment is down again and we have the most people employed in this country, ever! Add to that the coilition has the deficit reducing, borrowings under control, retaining the Triple A rating, exports to non European countries higher than to Europe etc etc. It's looking a whole lot better than Greece where wages and pensions are down 40%!!!!
It may seem tough at the moment for a few but the austerity measure are working.... its a pity that mass immigration from the EU was not controlled as then we would have been in a pretty good position !!
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: In the BIG picture, unemployment is down again and we have the most people employed in this country, ever! Add to that the coilition has the deficit reducing, borrowings under control, retaining the Triple A rating, exports to non European countries higher than to Europe etc etc. It's looking a whole lot better than Greece where wages and pensions are down 40%!!!![/p][/quote]It may seem tough at the moment for a few but the austerity measure are working.... its a pity that mass immigration from the EU was not controlled as then we would have been in a pretty good position !! Cyber__Fug

12:20pm Wed 14 Nov 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Unemployment has fallen to its lowest total for over a year, although there has been an increase in the number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance, figures showed today.
The jobless total dropped by 49,000 in the quarter to September to 2.51 million, the lowest figure since last summer.
But the so-called claimant count jumped by 10,100 last month to 1.58 million, the highest since July, and the biggest monthly rise since last September.
The number of people in work increased by 100,000 in the latest quarter to just under 30 million, a rise of over half a million over the past year.
Other figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that long-term unemployment - those out of work for over a year - increased by 12,000 in the quarter to September to 894,000, while 443,000 people have been jobless for over two years, up by 21,000.
Part-time employment increased by 49,000 to 8.1 million, close to a record high, while there were 51,000 more people in full-time jobs, at 21.4 million.
Unemployment among women fell by 10,000 to 1.09 million, and by 39,000 among men to 1.43 million.
Unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds fell by 49,000, which accounts for the total fall in today's jobless figures.
More young people are classed as economically inactive, most of whom were in full-time education.
Unemployment has fallen to its lowest total for over a year, although there has been an increase in the number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance, figures showed today. The jobless total dropped by 49,000 in the quarter to September to 2.51 million, the lowest figure since last summer. But the so-called claimant count jumped by 10,100 last month to 1.58 million, the highest since July, and the biggest monthly rise since last September. The number of people in work increased by 100,000 in the latest quarter to just under 30 million, a rise of over half a million over the past year. Other figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that long-term unemployment - those out of work for over a year - increased by 12,000 in the quarter to September to 894,000, while 443,000 people have been jobless for over two years, up by 21,000. Part-time employment increased by 49,000 to 8.1 million, close to a record high, while there were 51,000 more people in full-time jobs, at 21.4 million. Unemployment among women fell by 10,000 to 1.09 million, and by 39,000 among men to 1.43 million. Unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds fell by 49,000, which accounts for the total fall in today's jobless figures. More young people are classed as economically inactive, most of whom were in full-time education. OSPREYSAINT

12:39pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Ben Durutti says...

Would have been far, far worse if Royston had stayed in power. How can you trust a man to run our city who 'forgot' to put his seat belt on and was driving around in his car with no insurance???
Would have been far, far worse if Royston had stayed in power. How can you trust a man to run our city who 'forgot' to put his seat belt on and was driving around in his car with no insurance??? Ben Durutti

12:46pm Wed 14 Nov 12

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote: Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?
Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.
I luse to like debating with you but like some of the other left wing posters on here when you know you've been made to look stupid by this council & the Unions instead of admitting it & attacking them you attack people like me who've been telling the truth all along why? Ranting? Lying? is that the best defence you have to offer for this disastrous council?
Contrary to what your mission is, you are a terrible advert for the Tories. Clearly you do not respect peoples right to their own opinion and determination (if it doesn't match your version of how things should be). You din't work for SCC, you're not being made redundant, butt (excuse the pun) out.
Is that your best reply?(butt out?)
I've been made redundant twice I've worked for free in schools coaching Rugby, I've helped OAP's do there Gardens I take produce from my allotment to my local church & give it to the OAP's.
You have proven by your posts in the past you are self centred & only think of yourself.
Whilst Refuse men/ladies were out striking exactly what were you doing?
You were on here saying who asked us if we wanted to save jobs who asked us if we wanted a pay cut?
What great solidarity you showed with those who were losing their weekly pay to get your pay restored.
Why don't you get a job in Eastleigh?
I have had enough of you left wing idiots who know they've been shafted by this council & the Unions but attack the very people who told them the truth.
Are you being made redundant?
I pay my council taxes so what ever happens in the council has something to do with me as I contribute to your wages I guess that kinda makes me one of your bosses doesn't it?
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?[/p][/quote]Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.[/p][/quote]I luse to like debating with you but like some of the other left wing posters on here when you know you've been made to look stupid by this council & the Unions instead of admitting it & attacking them you attack people like me who've been telling the truth all along why? Ranting? Lying? is that the best defence you have to offer for this disastrous council?[/p][/quote]Contrary to what your mission is, you are a terrible advert for the Tories. Clearly you do not respect peoples right to their own opinion and determination (if it doesn't match your version of how things should be). You din't work for SCC, you're not being made redundant, butt (excuse the pun) out.[/p][/quote]Is that your best reply?(butt out?) I've been made redundant twice I've worked for free in schools coaching Rugby, I've helped OAP's do there Gardens I take produce from my allotment to my local church & give it to the OAP's. You have proven by your posts in the past you are self centred & only think of yourself. Whilst Refuse men/ladies were out striking exactly what were you doing? You were on here saying who asked us if we wanted to save jobs who asked us if we wanted a pay cut? What great solidarity you showed with those who were losing their weekly pay to get your pay restored. Why don't you get a job in Eastleigh? I have had enough of you left wing idiots who know they've been shafted by this council & the Unions but attack the very people who told them the truth. Are you being made redundant? I pay my council taxes so what ever happens in the council has something to do with me as I contribute to your wages I guess that kinda makes me one of your bosses doesn't it? loosehead

12:46pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Ben Durutti says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
one in a million wrote: "HORRENDOUS - fall out from worst cuts EVER" What a headline!
Yes. It's another typical overblown overreacting precious public sector hyperbole. These aren't even the worst job cuts in this city this week FFS - Ford closing down is far more damaging, but of course that is private sector so it doesn't count I suppose? The bloated self pitying inneficient union riddled public sector broom pushing non jobs are being thinned, that's all, and yet it's the end of the world. Here's an idea. Let's do away with the entire local government tier - inept councillors, overpaid risk averse middle managers and executives retiring at 50 on gold plated pensions the private sector workers could only dream about, and all paid for by the same private sector workers whose pensions have just been slashed yet again!
Oh aye, there was absolutely NOTHING in the Echo about the dreadful closure of Fords was there?
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: "HORRENDOUS - fall out from worst cuts EVER" What a headline![/p][/quote]Yes. It's another typical overblown overreacting precious public sector hyperbole. These aren't even the worst job cuts in this city this week FFS - Ford closing down is far more damaging, but of course that is private sector so it doesn't count I suppose? The bloated self pitying inneficient union riddled public sector broom pushing non jobs are being thinned, that's all, and yet it's the end of the world. Here's an idea. Let's do away with the entire local government tier - inept councillors, overpaid risk averse middle managers and executives retiring at 50 on gold plated pensions the private sector workers could only dream about, and all paid for by the same private sector workers whose pensions have just been slashed yet again![/p][/quote]Oh aye, there was absolutely NOTHING in the Echo about the dreadful closure of Fords was there? Ben Durutti

12:50pm Wed 14 Nov 12

allison.luella says...

Gordon Clown (i like that) and Ballsy Wallsy had their hands in the cash tin the whole time Labour were in power!!

They sold all our gold, and spent the proceeds.

Prudence what a lie that was!! MR BROWN
Gordon Clown (i like that) and Ballsy Wallsy had their hands in the cash tin the whole time Labour were in power!! They sold all our gold, and spent the proceeds. Prudence what a lie that was!! MR BROWN allison.luella

1:40pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_ together wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_ together wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .
I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did. Why waste £4m on redundancies? Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job. But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed. The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees. I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good
Strange how we see things so differently. . I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments. . Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so. . Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky. . The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs. .
Lone Ranger, Its very simple to review what the conservative plans were, and what Williams said when seeking office, and after achieving office. The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council, and the council workers will rue not standing up to the Unions. Sadly it was entirely predictable that Labour and the Unions would let them down.
No ... Sadly the only thing that was predictable was the facts. . There would have been job losses whoever was in power ..... and more with Smith and Co. . It seems strange that you say "The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council" . ....... When all along the voters of Southampton chose to dump Smith and Co .......... NOT because of what Williams had said .... BUT ... because Smith and his merry band were becoming unelectable. . Smith was the one who turned employee angainst employee ........ It was Smith who took on the Unions in an attempt to brake them .... and ultimately it was Smith's actions that caused the council workers to strike. . Now if you want to start pointing fingers i suggest that you start with the Failed EX leader ....... Perhaps his arrogance and dictitorial attitude was the catalyst for his and his parties downfall
Sotonians - "why waste £4m on redundancies?" Ask Royston Smith how much his policy of refundancies cost the Council in the last 30 months. I'll give you an example, Lorraine Brown, firmer head if Environment. Very talented and well respected. Jumped ship cos she couldn't stand the thought of working with Royston and the Chief Exec. Cost of employing her circa £130k per annum. Redundancy cost £330k. Replacement was to be 0.5 share with iow, cost, circa £65k. Net result, 5 years to reap any financial saving whilst losing a great leader who was committed to Southampton and gaining, well who knows?......
How can it be responsible for any public servant for it to cost 3 years service to make them redundant.

No public servant should receive more than the statutory minimum on redundancy.

Why do we have such ridiculous situations? I wouldnt be in the least surprised if it is all down yet again to the unions.
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did. Why waste £4m on redundancies? Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job. But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed. The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees. I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good[/p][/quote]Strange how we see things so differently. . I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments. . Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so. . Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky. . The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs. .[/p][/quote]Lone Ranger, Its very simple to review what the conservative plans were, and what Williams said when seeking office, and after achieving office. The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council, and the council workers will rue not standing up to the Unions. Sadly it was entirely predictable that Labour and the Unions would let them down.[/p][/quote]No ... Sadly the only thing that was predictable was the facts. . There would have been job losses whoever was in power ..... and more with Smith and Co. . It seems strange that you say "The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council" . ....... When all along the voters of Southampton chose to dump Smith and Co .......... NOT because of what Williams had said .... BUT ... because Smith and his merry band were becoming unelectable. . Smith was the one who turned employee angainst employee ........ It was Smith who took on the Unions in an attempt to brake them .... and ultimately it was Smith's actions that caused the council workers to strike. . Now if you want to start pointing fingers i suggest that you start with the Failed EX leader ....... Perhaps his arrogance and dictitorial attitude was the catalyst for his and his parties downfall[/p][/quote]Sotonians - "why waste £4m on redundancies?" Ask Royston Smith how much his policy of refundancies cost the Council in the last 30 months. I'll give you an example, Lorraine Brown, firmer head if Environment. Very talented and well respected. Jumped ship cos she couldn't stand the thought of working with Royston and the Chief Exec. Cost of employing her circa £130k per annum. Redundancy cost £330k. Replacement was to be 0.5 share with iow, cost, circa £65k. Net result, 5 years to reap any financial saving whilst losing a great leader who was committed to Southampton and gaining, well who knows?......[/p][/quote]How can it be responsible for any public servant for it to cost 3 years service to make them redundant. No public servant should receive more than the statutory minimum on redundancy. Why do we have such ridiculous situations? I wouldnt be in the least surprised if it is all down yet again to the unions. Sotonians_lets_pull_together

2:03pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Ben Durutti says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_ together wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_ together wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .
I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did. Why waste £4m on redundancies? Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job. But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed. The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees. I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good
Strange how we see things so differently. . I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments. . Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so. . Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky. . The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs. .
Lone Ranger, Its very simple to review what the conservative plans were, and what Williams said when seeking office, and after achieving office. The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council, and the council workers will rue not standing up to the Unions. Sadly it was entirely predictable that Labour and the Unions would let them down.
No ... Sadly the only thing that was predictable was the facts. . There would have been job losses whoever was in power ..... and more with Smith and Co. . It seems strange that you say "The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council" . ....... When all along the voters of Southampton chose to dump Smith and Co .......... NOT because of what Williams had said .... BUT ... because Smith and his merry band were becoming unelectable. . Smith was the one who turned employee angainst employee ........ It was Smith who took on the Unions in an attempt to brake them .... and ultimately it was Smith's actions that caused the council workers to strike. . Now if you want to start pointing fingers i suggest that you start with the Failed EX leader ....... Perhaps his arrogance and dictitorial attitude was the catalyst for his and his parties downfall
Sotonians - "why waste £4m on redundancies?" Ask Royston Smith how much his policy of refundancies cost the Council in the last 30 months. I'll give you an example, Lorraine Brown, firmer head if Environment. Very talented and well respected. Jumped ship cos she couldn't stand the thought of working with Royston and the Chief Exec. Cost of employing her circa £130k per annum. Redundancy cost £330k. Replacement was to be 0.5 share with iow, cost, circa £65k. Net result, 5 years to reap any financial saving whilst losing a great leader who was committed to Southampton and gaining, well who knows?......
How can it be responsible for any public servant for it to cost 3 years service to make them redundant. No public servant should receive more than the statutory minimum on redundancy. Why do we have such ridiculous situations? I wouldnt be in the least surprised if it is all down yet again to the unions.
Yes and the unions are also responsible for:-
a) Saints poor start to the season.
b) Hurricane Sandy.
c) the passing of my elderly cat.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: After reading last nights posts it really does surprise and disappoint me that the usual and typical Tory posters seems to be lactivating at the loss of 300 jobs. . The continual wallowing in the gratification that these people lose their jobs and family incomes all be cause they feel its the fault of a Labour council. . What mugs. . Not only do the "celebrate" these losses they also then continue to slag off "Outreach and Social workers and other department within the council. . Shameful. . Then to cap it all you get the usual Echo quote from the failed ex leader Smith who says "we would have done it differently" ..... Yes ..... it would have been far worse. . The reason for the cust backs is due to the massive cuts from Westminster and nothing else ........ The Tory posters should remember the Omnishambles that exists at Westminster and the pathetic incompetence of the people that run it. . I really feel for the people that will lose their jobs. Life is difficult enough even if you have employment but hope that they will not be without for too long. .[/p][/quote]I see conservative posters sickened by the unnecessary loss of jobs, such a shame that the unions and labour took the courses of action that they did. Why waste £4m on redundancies? Surely better to keep staff in post, and give everyone a small pay cut, it is much fairer, it preserves services, and keeps as many as possible in a job. But of course that is exactly what the conservatives were doing, and the unions and labour opposed. The unions and labour have let down the people of Southampton, and have let down the employees. I hope the council workers who didnt bother to vote against the strikes realise now their mistake. They must stand up for themselves, and vote down the militants, whenever they rear their heads, as they do more harm than good[/p][/quote]Strange how we see things so differently. . I didnt see ANY Tory poster sickened by the job losses .... hence the comments. . Redundancy equates to £13k ave per person. ....... If you paid someone £13k as a wage is that it really costs to have an employee ..... I dont think so. . Small pay cuts offered or rather IMPOSED by Smith would have made no difference at all ..... the same number if not more would have gone. Smith by losing the election last May was his "Get out of Jail" card ... so very lucky. . The Tory led coalition have let down the people of Southampton just as they have done accross every Village, Town and City accross the Country with such enormous funding cut backs. .[/p][/quote]Lone Ranger, Its very simple to review what the conservative plans were, and what Williams said when seeking office, and after achieving office. The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council, and the council workers will rue not standing up to the Unions. Sadly it was entirely predictable that Labour and the Unions would let them down.[/p][/quote]No ... Sadly the only thing that was predictable was the facts. . There would have been job losses whoever was in power ..... and more with Smith and Co. . It seems strange that you say "The labour voters of Southampton will rue the day they elected a Labour council" . ....... When all along the voters of Southampton chose to dump Smith and Co .......... NOT because of what Williams had said .... BUT ... because Smith and his merry band were becoming unelectable. . Smith was the one who turned employee angainst employee ........ It was Smith who took on the Unions in an attempt to brake them .... and ultimately it was Smith's actions that caused the council workers to strike. . Now if you want to start pointing fingers i suggest that you start with the Failed EX leader ....... Perhaps his arrogance and dictitorial attitude was the catalyst for his and his parties downfall[/p][/quote]Sotonians - "why waste £4m on redundancies?" Ask Royston Smith how much his policy of refundancies cost the Council in the last 30 months. I'll give you an example, Lorraine Brown, firmer head if Environment. Very talented and well respected. Jumped ship cos she couldn't stand the thought of working with Royston and the Chief Exec. Cost of employing her circa £130k per annum. Redundancy cost £330k. Replacement was to be 0.5 share with iow, cost, circa £65k. Net result, 5 years to reap any financial saving whilst losing a great leader who was committed to Southampton and gaining, well who knows?......[/p][/quote]How can it be responsible for any public servant for it to cost 3 years service to make them redundant. No public servant should receive more than the statutory minimum on redundancy. Why do we have such ridiculous situations? I wouldnt be in the least surprised if it is all down yet again to the unions.[/p][/quote]Yes and the unions are also responsible for:- a) Saints poor start to the season. b) Hurricane Sandy. c) the passing of my elderly cat. Ben Durutti

2:31pm Wed 14 Nov 12

rich the stitch says...

Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy says... 2:11pm Tue 13 Nov 12 Needs Budget program as been put forward by the Socialist party here in Southampton for the last 3 to 4 years. I have gone through the manifestos on both the TUSC & the socialist websites and there is no mention of it. Please could you send me the link as I would be interested to see it !
Southy has spouted rubbish which he can’t back up and done the usual runner. Again. Must remember to ask him to provide evidence on this ‘needs budget program’ when he reappears though.
I think he’s read it out of context ie ‘this government needs a budget program which will....’ So although the words appear in the same sentance they don't mean what Southy thinks they do.
[quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: southy says... 2:11pm Tue 13 Nov 12 Needs Budget program as been put forward by the Socialist party here in Southampton for the last 3 to 4 years. I have gone through the manifestos on both the TUSC & the socialist websites and there is no mention of it. Please could you send me the link as I would be interested to see it ![/p][/quote]Southy has spouted rubbish which he can’t back up and done the usual runner. Again. Must remember to ask him to provide evidence on this ‘needs budget program’ when he reappears though. I think he’s read it out of context ie ‘this government needs a budget program which will....’ So although the words appear in the same sentance they don't mean what Southy thinks they do. rich the stitch

7:46pm Wed 14 Nov 12

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote: Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?
Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.
I luse to like debating with you but like some of the other left wing posters on here when you know you've been made to look stupid by this council & the Unions instead of admitting it & attacking them you attack people like me who've been telling the truth all along why? Ranting? Lying? is that the best defence you have to offer for this disastrous council?
Contrary to what your mission is, you are a terrible advert for the Tories. Clearly you do not respect peoples right to their own opinion and determination (if it doesn't match your version of how things should be). You din't work for SCC, you're not being made redundant, butt (excuse the pun) out.
Is that your best reply?(butt out?) I've been made redundant twice I've worked for free in schools coaching Rugby, I've helped OAP's do there Gardens I take produce from my allotment to my local church & give it to the OAP's. You have proven by your posts in the past you are self centred & only think of yourself. Whilst Refuse men/ladies were out striking exactly what were you doing? You were on here saying who asked us if we wanted to save jobs who asked us if we wanted a pay cut? What great solidarity you showed with those who were losing their weekly pay to get your pay restored. Why don't you get a job in Eastleigh? I have had enough of you left wing idiots who know they've been shafted by this council & the Unions but attack the very people who told them the truth. Are you being made redundant? I pay my council taxes so what ever happens in the council has something to do with me as I contribute to your wages I guess that kinda makes me one of your bosses doesn't it?
Someone once told me that 90 per cent of the population are moronic. You fit the bill. Do you ever stop and think about what other people are posting? You make out like SCC are meek stupid sheep blindly following the lies of the Union. WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS!!!!!! SCC staff are not now learning the error of their ways. These job cuts were coming anyway. We knew that, but there was no way we were taking the pay cut AND the job cuts. I am quite happy with the way things were done as are most. You don't know you don't work there, I DO!! !!!!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?[/p][/quote]Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.[/p][/quote]I luse to like debating with you but like some of the other left wing posters on here when you know you've been made to look stupid by this council & the Unions instead of admitting it & attacking them you attack people like me who've been telling the truth all along why? Ranting? Lying? is that the best defence you have to offer for this disastrous council?[/p][/quote]Contrary to what your mission is, you are a terrible advert for the Tories. Clearly you do not respect peoples right to their own opinion and determination (if it doesn't match your version of how things should be). You din't work for SCC, you're not being made redundant, butt (excuse the pun) out.[/p][/quote]Is that your best reply?(butt out?) I've been made redundant twice I've worked for free in schools coaching Rugby, I've helped OAP's do there Gardens I take produce from my allotment to my local church & give it to the OAP's. You have proven by your posts in the past you are self centred & only think of yourself. Whilst Refuse men/ladies were out striking exactly what were you doing? You were on here saying who asked us if we wanted to save jobs who asked us if we wanted a pay cut? What great solidarity you showed with those who were losing their weekly pay to get your pay restored. Why don't you get a job in Eastleigh? I have had enough of you left wing idiots who know they've been shafted by this council & the Unions but attack the very people who told them the truth. Are you being made redundant? I pay my council taxes so what ever happens in the council has something to do with me as I contribute to your wages I guess that kinda makes me one of your bosses doesn't it?[/p][/quote]Someone once told me that 90 per cent of the population are moronic. You fit the bill. Do you ever stop and think about what other people are posting? You make out like SCC are meek stupid sheep blindly following the lies of the Union. WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS!!!!!! SCC staff are not now learning the error of their ways. These job cuts were coming anyway. We knew that, but there was no way we were taking the pay cut AND the job cuts. I am quite happy with the way things were done as are most. You don't know you don't work there, I DO!! !!!! thinklikealocal

9:23pm Wed 14 Nov 12

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote: Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?
Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.
I luse to like debating with you but like some of the other left wing posters on here when you know you've been made to look stupid by this council & the Unions instead of admitting it & attacking them you attack people like me who've been telling the truth all along why? Ranting? Lying? is that the best defence you have to offer for this disastrous council?
Contrary to what your mission is, you are a terrible advert for the Tories. Clearly you do not respect peoples right to their own opinion and determination (if it doesn't match your version of how things should be). You din't work for SCC, you're not being made redundant, butt (excuse the pun) out.
Is that your best reply?(butt out?) I've been made redundant twice I've worked for free in schools coaching Rugby, I've helped OAP's do there Gardens I take produce from my allotment to my local church & give it to the OAP's. You have proven by your posts in the past you are self centred & only think of yourself. Whilst Refuse men/ladies were out striking exactly what were you doing? You were on here saying who asked us if we wanted to save jobs who asked us if we wanted a pay cut? What great solidarity you showed with those who were losing their weekly pay to get your pay restored. Why don't you get a job in Eastleigh? I have had enough of you left wing idiots who know they've been shafted by this council & the Unions but attack the very people who told them the truth. Are you being made redundant? I pay my council taxes so what ever happens in the council has something to do with me as I contribute to your wages I guess that kinda makes me one of your bosses doesn't it?
Someone once told me that 90 per cent of the population are moronic. You fit the bill. Do you ever stop and think about what other people are posting? You make out like SCC are meek stupid sheep blindly following the lies of the Union. WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS!!!!!! SCC staff are not now learning the error of their ways. These job cuts were coming anyway. We knew that, but there was no way we were taking the pay cut AND the job cuts. I am quite happy with the way things were done as are most. You don't know you don't work there, I DO!! !!!!
Are you looking in the mirror? Calling some one Moronic you should really take a look at yourself!
If your that thick you didn't listen when the Tory Council said by a pay cut which they took themselves they could keep the redundancies down to a minimum amongst permanent employees.
It was only after God knows how many months & meetings with the Unions the Tory Council; accepted the Unions point of view & EIGHTY yes EIGHTY permanent staff would have had to go through early retirement or redundancy & only those above £22,000 would take a pay cut.
So NO the job cuts weren't coming anyway, amalgamation of some services with the Isle Of Wight would have bought in huge savings but your beloved Williams scrapped that deal WHY?
You are so blinkered you just couldn't see when you were better off could you?
After all this name calling Why not say if your losing your job?
Or are you insulting me so I keep quiet about your Lying Unions & Labour party which isn't even your council is it?
Your such a highly trained person I guess you could find a job in Eastleigh easily couldn't you or perhaps not?
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Even when it's blatantly obvious that the Council has shafted it's work force you lot blame the Tories? Why aren't you asking exactly what did the Unions who are suppose to be sticking up for these workers know? Why did Williams say the Echo was wrong & he never said fortnightly collections or 1-10 refuse jobs to go? Or that he also said 1,500 redundancies? He said all of this before he got elected then denied he said it? So he knew the £42million shortfall yet he lied to get elected & you lot defend his Council? I hope these workers find work, Why oh why! did you lot carry on this Labour lie? Many of us warned these workers they shouldn't trust Labour but they were conned by 1/pay outs from legal action. 2/ there's no need to cut pay & we won't make anyone redundant? 3/ a deal where redundancy & pension pay would be reduced? Are you telling me then the council & the Unions didn't know there would be a high rate of redundancies when they got this agreement with the workers? No court action .less redundancy pay outs & lower pensions to pay this is the GREAT UNION & LABOUR con of the workers or can't you blind fools see that?[/p][/quote]Ranting again. Some if it is straight forward ranting. Some of it is rant-ignorance. But I'm afraid some of it is rant-lies. Shame on you.[/p][/quote]I luse to like debating with you but like some of the other left wing posters on here when you know you've been made to look stupid by this council & the Unions instead of admitting it & attacking them you attack people like me who've been telling the truth all along why? Ranting? Lying? is that the best defence you have to offer for this disastrous council?[/p][/quote]Contrary to what your mission is, you are a terrible advert for the Tories. Clearly you do not respect peoples right to their own opinion and determination (if it doesn't match your version of how things should be). You din't work for SCC, you're not being made redundant, butt (excuse the pun) out.[/p][/quote]Is that your best reply?(butt out?) I've been made redundant twice I've worked for free in schools coaching Rugby, I've helped OAP's do there Gardens I take produce from my allotment to my local church & give it to the OAP's. You have proven by your posts in the past you are self centred & only think of yourself. Whilst Refuse men/ladies were out striking exactly what were you doing? You were on here saying who asked us if we wanted to save jobs who asked us if we wanted a pay cut? What great solidarity you showed with those who were losing their weekly pay to get your pay restored. Why don't you get a job in Eastleigh? I have had enough of you left wing idiots who know they've been shafted by this council & the Unions but attack the very people who told them the truth. Are you being made redundant? I pay my council taxes so what ever happens in the council has something to do with me as I contribute to your wages I guess that kinda makes me one of your bosses doesn't it?[/p][/quote]Someone once told me that 90 per cent of the population are moronic. You fit the bill. Do you ever stop and think about what other people are posting? You make out like SCC are meek stupid sheep blindly following the lies of the Union. WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS!!!!!! SCC staff are not now learning the error of their ways. These job cuts were coming anyway. We knew that, but there was no way we were taking the pay cut AND the job cuts. I am quite happy with the way things were done as are most. You don't know you don't work there, I DO!! !!!![/p][/quote]Are you looking in the mirror? Calling some one Moronic you should really take a look at yourself! If your that thick you didn't listen when the Tory Council said by a pay cut which they took themselves they could keep the redundancies down to a minimum amongst permanent employees. It was only after God knows how many months & meetings with the Unions the Tory Council; accepted the Unions point of view & EIGHTY yes EIGHTY permanent staff would have had to go through early retirement or redundancy & only those above £22,000 would take a pay cut. So NO the job cuts weren't coming anyway, amalgamation of some services with the Isle Of Wight would have bought in huge savings but your beloved Williams scrapped that deal WHY? You are so blinkered you just couldn't see when you were better off could you? After all this name calling Why not say if your losing your job? Or are you insulting me so I keep quiet about your Lying Unions & Labour party which isn't even your council is it? Your such a highly trained person I guess you could find a job in Eastleigh easily couldn't you or perhaps not? loosehead

9:26pm Wed 14 Nov 12

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?
Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.
Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?
I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.
Okay when I worked at BAT I was on a higher rate of pay as I was trained up to run High speed machines this worked out to be £20 a week or £80 a month. when the company decided to get rid of jobs & introduce team work I took on extra work or lost my job or in their words I gave up my job. The company wanted more to go but the Unions negotiated a deal where we could save jobs but lose our High speed wage so cutting my pay to keep people in work. Later on we were in a battle or so we thought with Germany so many of us who could earn £200 for an eight hour overtime shift gave up that pay to bring down our production costs to save our jobs we also went from double time to time & a Half we also0 lost many of the perks we had secured like service pay to secure our jobs so sorry about my rant but I never wanted to see any of my work colleagues lose their jobs can you say the same?
Well Looselips, you've very nicely proved my point about comparing the public and private sectors. £200 overtime for an 8 hour shift. Something we can only dream about at SCC and I expect your talking about quite some time ago so even higher value in todays money. Do you think staff at SCC haven't had to change duties, take on more work? BAT dud one thing - make fags. SCC provides hundreds if services and is very complex, bin men to degree educated social workers, accountants, town planners. When you talk about job losses, its not a simple 5 per cent of that shift going. So as a pensioner (i guess) when was your pension cut to help with this economic crisis? Thought not.
You asked me not to rant I didn't you then come on here slating what I earnt in the private sector? I was on night shift which if you didn't realise is normally paid at a higher rate. To cover a huge order for China we were asked to work every hour we could or lose the order & possibly our jobs. On a Monday I'd go in at 06-00am until 12-00 then go home go back in at 18-00hrs work until 06-00 some times working on until 08-00 I worked myself until my body said enough's enough I'd give up my weekends to work would you,do you? You had the chance to stop this by accepting the cuts but you oh! YOU didn't care about your fellow workers but you did care about your wages . Oh! when I was made redundant I had to wait a year & at 50 I received my company pension,
You have failed to take on board a single thing I said about the difference between BAT and SCC. I suspect it doesn't suit your argument. Yes, I work many hours that are outside of my normal contracted hours, including unsociable hours. I receive no financial compensation for this. So you hot a redundancy package at 49 and a pension at 50. Well done you. SCC staff will have to wait many more years for their pension. Please answer the question - has your pension been cut to help with the economic crisis?
Was your agreement with the council to cut your pension & redundancy pay to help the economic crisis or was it because you were getting final salary pensions?
Which I never got & I put a whopping £38,000 of my redundancy pay into.
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Labour were told by the last council there would be a £42million cut in funding over the next two years yet Letts says we only thought it would be £32million? What they thought the Tories were following Labours Lies with Lies? They have £3million from savings to fight the court action,they have an underspend of £6.9million from the last council. It's Labours so called Policy Nationally to say yes cuts but not in one hit so why aren't Labour easing them in? It was Williams who stated here in this paper 1,500 job cuts if we get in & fortnightly collections. It was the Council of the time ( Tory) that applied for the £8million grant to keep weekly collections & save jobs. How not to lose support? I know blame the Government? this pay restoration is going to cost £7.9millionapprox. with the underspend it comes to £14million take that from £42million =£28million Labour is lying to get itself out of a hole. I said I told you so because of all the c==p you've given me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs unlike a labour supporter on these posts. Thinklikealocal advocated job losses but no pay cuts she now has her wish so why aren't you attacking people like her? Exactly where's the extra money Labour are spending on the Townhill development coming from you all know the £50million?[/p][/quote]Looselips, you are ranting incoherently again. Get a grip because you are failing to make your point. People don't agree with you - get over it. I have never been pro job cuts but yes I was anti pay cuts. How typical of your warped sense of reality that you jnvite people to attack me! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. The cuts that make the job cuts inevitable are by the con/dem coalition in London.[/p][/quote]Funny that how do you know if my lips are lose? When I was on here defending the councils actions on saving jobs through pay cuts you attacked that scenario you said they never asked us if we wanted pay cuts or job cuts. I kept on at you & you said you'd rather see job cuts than take a cut in pay? You do not live in the city but you seem to criticise a party that was actively trying to keep job cuts to a minimum whilst saving services. The amount the Government was going to cut their funding over the next two years was out there in the4 Public Domain so how come Labour got it so wrong? ARE YOU getting made redundant? Or are you sat back & waiting for your pay to be restored at the expense of all these services & job cuts? You can slate the Government but the truth is for years now people have been taking pay cuts people not in Unions or with Unions consent taking those pay cuts to save jobs. You & so it seems many other so called Union members/socialists/L abour supporters don't give a **** for your fellow workers why not? why do they care more in private industry than in Public service?[/p][/quote]I call you Looselips because whenever you post this 'avalanche' of disjointed rambling comes out. The point you don't seem to get is I don't believe Royston Smith's motive for cutting pay was to save jobs and nothing you rant will ever convince me otherwise. Please tell me when you took a pay cut and how much it was for? You also seem to overlook the fact that pay in the private sector rises and falls with the boom and bust cycles. Not the same in the public sector so please don't try and compare.[/p][/quote]Okay when I worked at BAT I was on a higher rate of pay as I was trained up to run High speed machines this worked out to be £20 a week or £80 a month. when the company decided to get rid of jobs & introduce team work I took on extra work or lost my job or in their words I gave up my job. The company wanted more to go but the Unions negotiated a deal where we could save jobs but lose our High speed wage so cutting my pay to keep people in work. Later on we were in a battle or so we thought with Germany so many of us who could earn £200 for an eight hour overtime shift gave up that pay to bring down our production costs to save our jobs we also went from double time to time & a Half we also0 lost many of the perks we had secured like service pay to secure our jobs so sorry about my rant but I never wanted to see any of my work colleagues lose their jobs can you say the same?[/p][/quote]Well Looselips, you've very nicely proved my point about comparing the public and private sectors. £200 overtime for an 8 hour shift. Something we can only dream about at SCC and I expect your talking about quite some time ago so even higher value in todays money. Do you think staff at SCC haven't had to change duties, take on more work? BAT dud one thing - make fags. SCC provides hundreds if services and is very complex, bin men to degree educated social workers, accountants, town planners. When you talk about job losses, its not a simple 5 per cent of that shift going. So as a pensioner (i guess) when was your pension cut to help with this economic crisis? Thought not.[/p][/quote]You asked me not to rant I didn't you then come on here slating what I earnt in the private sector? I was on night shift which if you didn't realise is normally paid at a higher rate. To cover a huge order for China we were asked to work every hour we could or lose the order & possibly our jobs. On a Monday I'd go in at 06-00am until 12-00 then go home go back in at 18-00hrs work until 06-00 some times working on until 08-00 I worked myself until my body said enough's enough I'd give up my weekends to work would you,do you? You had the chance to stop this by accepting the cuts but you oh! YOU didn't care about your fellow workers but you did care about your wages . Oh! when I was made redundant I had to wait a year & at 50 I received my company pension,[/p][/quote]You have failed to take on board a single thing I said about the difference between BAT and SCC. I suspect it doesn't suit your argument. Yes, I work many hours that are outside of my normal contracted hours, including unsociable hours. I receive no financial compensation for this. So you hot a redundancy package at 49 and a pension at 50. Well done you. SCC staff will have to wait many more years for their pension. Please answer the question - has your pension been cut to help with the economic crisis?[/p][/quote]Was your agreement with the council to cut your pension & redundancy pay to help the economic crisis or was it because you were getting final salary pensions? Which I never got & I put a whopping £38,000 of my redundancy pay into. loosehead

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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