Unions to decide action over city's worst ever cuts (From Daily Echo)

So strike's by refuse men when most never took a pay cut but will they strike now when many will take the biggest cut of all?
Losing their jobs will lose all of their pay & these same unions knew about it before the local elections & before the meeting to ratify the deal with the council?
The deal where the legal action the unions said was in the bag & no doubt they'd win would be dropped.the deal where to many no difference in pay yet a cut in redundancy payments a cut in pensions yet before this vote according to Labour the Unions were in talks with them on this very subject?
Who's betraying who? Who's responsible for this mess? Who promised the earth knowing of the cut in Government funding? The Tory Party? NO the Liberal Party? NO Well then was it the Labour Party? YES

"Who is responsible for this mess?"

Look to the Royston Smith administration that found money to build a White Elephant museum, despite saying that it would be no cost to the City Council.

Look to Westminster that has cut funding, and penalises any council that increases council tax.

Look to the Coalition government that is seeing the cost of living rising more than incomes (except for those in the higher income bracket).

"Who is responsible for this mes?"

loosehead claims that it is the previous Labour government.

If that is the case, why is it that the UK was not left in the same dire straits that Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy, Irish Republic etc are in?

It is because of the prompt action that Gordon Brown took, WITH NO ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FROM TORY/LIBDEMS, to deal with the problem and reduce the impact of the Intenational financial problem.

In two and a half years of this coalition government we have seen a double-dip recession, and according to the out-going governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, there is a strong possibility of a Treble-dip recession, with a forecast that there is certainly no great improvement in the situation in the immediate future

Of course, no matter how long Dodgy Dave and Gormless George are running the show, there will always be some who remain blinkered to the facts and will blame Gordon Brown.

In two and half years of this Tory-led government, nothing has been done to improve the situation. The most vulnerable in society have been hit the hardest while the 'haves' continue to be unaffected.

this country is 15 TRILLION in debt , i,d imagine total collapse very soon .

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
this country is 15 TRILLION in debt , i,d imagine total collapse very soon .

Did you go to school with Southy?

With a Tory Council the plan job cut in total over 2 years was around 1,600, and that is with the work force taking a pay cut, A Labour Council will lose 1,500 jobs over 2 years (councillor Williams let that slip out, then Labour Right Wing party machine step in to try and hide it by saying he was miss quoted) we are now seeing the start of this job losses now.
Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections, and made a few statements like this one, they would team up with other Labour Council and fight the Government, so where is this teaming up of other councils to fight the government, in truth theres been no action from the Labour Party they been sitting on there back sides doing nothing, but then I am not surprise at all with self proclaim Labour Party members of being Capitalist and just team players, and will not lift a finger to help stopping the cuts but will implement cuts just as fast as the Torys or Lib/Dems will.
To Unite, Unison and the GMB Unions rank and file, I do like saying this but you was warned this would happen weather if you had a Tory or Labour Council, come the next election think twice before voting, if you know you have Councillors that will stick to there guns and support the workers and vote against cuts like Keith and Don have done, then vote for them, you have no excuse now, you know which Councillors that will vote in a cuts budget program and those that will not.

Ian Woodland thanks for the invite to your meeting tonight, but sorry I will have to decline the invite, but all the same have a good honest meeting.

Torchie1 wrote:

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
this country is 15 TRILLION in debt , i,d imagine total collapse very soon .

Did you go to school with Southy?

No he went to school with you

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
this country is 15 TRILLION in debt , i,d imagine total collapse very soon .

We are £1.2 Trillion in debt

Linesman wrote:
"Who is responsible for this mess?"

Look to the Royston Smith administration that found money to build a White Elephant museum, despite saying that it would be no cost to the City Council.

Look to Westminster that has cut funding, and penalises any council that increases council tax.

Look to the Coalition government that is seeing the cost of living rising more than incomes (except for those in the higher income bracket).

"Who is responsible for this mes?"

loosehead claims that it is the previous Labour government.

If that is the case, why is it that the UK was not left in the same dire straits that Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy, Irish Republic etc are in?

It is because of the prompt action that Gordon Brown took, WITH NO ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FROM TORY/LIBDEMS, to deal with the problem and reduce the impact of the Intenational financial problem.

In two and a half years of this coalition government we have seen a double-dip recession, and according to the out-going governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, there is a strong possibility of a Treble-dip recession, with a forecast that there is certainly no great improvement in the situation in the immediate future

Of course, no matter how long Dodgy Dave and Gormless George are running the show, there will always be some who remain blinkered to the facts and will blame Gordon Brown.

In two and half years of this Tory-led government, nothing has been done to improve the situation. The most vulnerable in society have been hit the hardest while the 'haves' continue to be unaffected.

Are you actually capable of posting something that doesn't include the Sea Museum?

Is this an auction?

Any advance on 15 Trillion?

southy wrote:

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
this country is 15 TRILLION in debt , i,d imagine total collapse very soon .

We are £1.2 Trillion in debt

Nice to see the missing 'R' inserted in the word Trillion, perhaps a little more polishing of the punctuation and your diatribes might become meaningful.

Southy says

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Over the Edge says

Councillor Letts came to you Pete and enquired why you are putting candidates in particular wards you wouldn't win in but could possibly split the vote? he mentioned in particular Bitterne and Redbridge wards, he knew you wouldn't stand down in Redbridge but Perry might have possibly in Bitterne.

southy wrote:

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
this country is 15 TRILLION in debt , i,d imagine total collapse very soon .

We are £1.2 Trillion in debt

Don’t know why you should be so definitive about the UK’s debt. After all at 5:18pm Wed 12 Jan 11 you were insistent that “this debt is not the people fault it 30 years of mismanagement and in reality its a false debt.”

So there you have it, from the great man himself. It’s not real, it’s false. This is the stark “reality” of Trotskyist economics. A few choice ideological phrases and utopia is restored.

Over the Edge wrote:
Southy says

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Over the Edge says

Councillor Letts came to you Pete and enquired why you are putting candidates in particular wards you wouldn't win in but could possibly split the vote? he mentioned in particular Bitterne and Redbridge wards, he knew you wouldn't stand down in Redbridge but Perry might have possibly in Bitterne.

If he came to us with that idea in his head then he not much of a Political Party member, As to that point when he came to the TUSC meeting no sections had been done, only one ward did he mention and that was the Sholing Ward, but he was asking for a total step down or at lest step down from Labour strong holds, It was not known at that point who would be standing and where, apart from me which stood out like a sore thumb that I be standing in Redbridge because I am the one who live west of the city at the time, and Bitterne and Redbridge Letts did not mention I brought up Redbridge, after when he mention Sholing, I said to him if you want us to give what would they give in exchange, and he ask what did i mean, the reply was example if we step down in Sholing (which we did just to test him out, with out him knowning), would you step down in Redbridge and he said no, So I said you just want to take and not give any in exchange.

southy wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:
Southy says

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Over the Edge says

Councillor Letts came to you Pete and enquired why you are putting candidates in particular wards you wouldn't win in but could possibly split the vote? he mentioned in particular Bitterne and Redbridge wards, he knew you wouldn't stand down in Redbridge but Perry might have possibly in Bitterne.

If he came to us with that idea in his head then he not much of a Political Party member, As to that point when he came to the TUSC meeting no sections had been done, only one ward did he mention and that was the Sholing Ward, but he was asking for a total step down or at lest step down from Labour strong holds, It was not known at that point who would be standing and where, apart from me which stood out like a sore thumb that I be standing in Redbridge because I am the one who live west of the city at the time, and Bitterne and Redbridge Letts did not mention I brought up Redbridge, after when he mention Sholing, I said to him if you want us to give what would they give in exchange, and he ask what did i mean, the reply was example if we step down in Sholing (which we did just to test him out, with out him knowning), would you step down in Redbridge and he said no, So I said you just want to take and not give any in exchange.

Rather distasteful politics all 'round.

southy wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:
Southy says

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Over the Edge says

Councillor Letts came to you Pete and enquired why you are putting candidates in particular wards you wouldn't win in but could possibly split the vote? he mentioned in particular Bitterne and Redbridge wards, he knew you wouldn't stand down in Redbridge but Perry might have possibly in Bitterne.

If he came to us with that idea in his head then he not much of a Political Party member, As to that point when he came to the TUSC meeting no sections had been done, only one ward did he mention and that was the Sholing Ward, but he was asking for a total step down or at lest step down from Labour strong holds, It was not known at that point who would be standing and where, apart from me which stood out like a sore thumb that I be standing in Redbridge because I am the one who live west of the city at the time, and Bitterne and Redbridge Letts did not mention I brought up Redbridge, after when he mention Sholing, I said to him if you want us to give what would they give in exchange, and he ask what did i mean, the reply was example if we step down in Sholing (which we did just to test him out, with out him knowning), would you step down in Redbridge and he said no, So I said you just want to take and not give any in exchange.

So was a total step down or partial one?

You seem to have contradicted yourself, your earlier comment said and I quote

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Which implies across the city not just in Sholing,,As I stated it wasn't across the city it was in particular wards, also just for good measure Perry came to me in Bitterne asking for my support prior to your lot announcing/selecting TUSC candidates for the election.

Fact

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:
Southy says

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Over the Edge says

Councillor Letts came to you Pete and enquired why you are putting candidates in particular wards you wouldn't win in but could possibly split the vote? he mentioned in particular Bitterne and Redbridge wards, he knew you wouldn't stand down in Redbridge but Perry might have possibly in Bitterne.

If he came to us with that idea in his head then he not much of a Political Party member, As to that point when he came to the TUSC meeting no sections had been done, only one ward did he mention and that was the Sholing Ward, but he was asking for a total step down or at lest step down from Labour strong holds, It was not known at that point who would be standing and where, apart from me which stood out like a sore thumb that I be standing in Redbridge because I am the one who live west of the city at the time, and Bitterne and Redbridge Letts did not mention I brought up Redbridge, after when he mention Sholing, I said to him if you want us to give what would they give in exchange, and he ask what did i mean, the reply was example if we step down in Sholing (which we did just to test him out, with out him knowning), would you step down in Redbridge and he said no, So I said you just want to take and not give any in exchange.

Rather distasteful politics all 'round.

Agreed, shouldn't happen like that

Linesman wrote:
"Who is responsible for this mess?"

Look to the Royston Smith administration that found money to build a White Elephant museum, despite saying that it would be no cost to the City Council.

Look to Westminster that has cut funding, and penalises any council that increases council tax.

Look to the Coalition government that is seeing the cost of living rising more than incomes (except for those in the higher income bracket).

"Who is responsible for this mes?"

loosehead claims that it is the previous Labour government.

If that is the case, why is it that the UK was not left in the same dire straits that Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy, Irish Republic etc are in?

It is because of the prompt action that Gordon Brown took, WITH NO ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FROM TORY/LIBDEMS, to deal with the problem and reduce the impact of the Intenational financial problem.

In two and a half years of this coalition government we have seen a double-dip recession, and according to the out-going governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, there is a strong possibility of a Treble-dip recession, with a forecast that there is certainly no great improvement in the situation in the immediate future

Of course, no matter how long Dodgy Dave and Gormless George are running the show, there will always be some who remain blinkered to the facts and will blame Gordon Brown.

In two and half years of this Tory-led government, nothing has been done to improve the situation. The most vulnerable in society have been hit the hardest while the 'haves' continue to be unaffected.

Read my post again will you?
At no point did I mention the Last Labour Government but as you've said I did YES all of this because Labour couldn't get their sums right & spent to buy votes.
I actually said Labour(local) knew the deficit before the local elections.
I said that over two years it worked out at £23.5 million which was wrong as it's £21million each year which is £4million less than the previous Labour Government took from us to give to the North as they took £25million so how did I say it was the last Labour Governments fault?
At the last meeting of Unions & the then Tory council the Unions let me say it again the UNIONS insisted on 80 permanent job losses.
then only those above £22,000 would take a pay cut of 2% -5.5% & the top figure was exactly what the Tories took as soon as they were in control they took a 5.5% pay cut .
Then one of those Unions (Unite) renegade on the agreement.
Your beloved Mr Williams lied to this paper & actually called a reporter a liar after he was quoted as saying 1,500 job losses, 1-10 refuse jobs to go, Fortnightly collections.
By Christ doesn't that sound familiar? Who was lying Mr williams?
The then Tory Council applied for a grant to save weekly collections & refuse jobs.
Only because of that those refuse men aren't losing their jobs & we have fortnightly collections so please Linesman stop blaming the Government & look closer at home & see Williams for what he is AN OUT & OUT LIAR

southy wrote:
With a Tory Council the plan job cut in total over 2 years was around 1,600, and that is with the work force taking a pay cut, A Labour Council will lose 1,500 jobs over 2 years (councillor Williams let that slip out, then Labour Right Wing party machine step in to try and hide it by saying he was miss quoted) we are now seeing the start of this job losses now.
Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections, and made a few statements like this one, they would team up with other Labour Council and fight the Government, so where is this teaming up of other councils to fight the government, in truth theres been no action from the Labour Party they been sitting on there back sides doing nothing, but then I am not surprise at all with self proclaim Labour Party members of being Capitalist and just team players, and will not lift a finger to help stopping the cuts but will implement cuts just as fast as the Torys or Lib/Dems will.
To Unite, Unison and the GMB Unions rank and file, I do like saying this but you was warned this would happen weather if you had a Tory or Labour Council, come the next election think twice before voting, if you know you have Councillors that will stick to there guns and support the workers and vote against cuts like Keith and Don have done, then vote for them, you have no excuse now, you know which Councillors that will vote in a cuts budget program and those that will not.

Ian Woodland thanks for the invite to your meeting tonight, but sorry I will have to decline the invite, but all the same have a good honest meeting.

Total lies Southy you know it was 800 so why are you now defending this Lying Labour Council with lies? Come on get a back bone & tell the truth even if it makes the tories look good.
Southy Labours 1,500 job losses did not include Temporary staff but the Tory 800 plus 800 temps many of which now work for Capita & didn't lose their jobs would have rounded the figure up to the mythical 1,600 you keep on spouting on about.
So in fact the final figure for redundancy or early retirement was about the 800 they actually said they would lose if the pay cuts were implemented so please tell the whole story not just the parts that make Labour look good & Tories look bad.
Didn't williams say the Tories would cut services? So what has he done?

We won't cut services we won't lose jobs( well not until we're in) we have plans to save money by working with other councils?
So we cut a lucrative deal with the Isle Of wight Council?
200 temps to go leaving space for four months for permanent employees to work ( lower wages?) then if they haven't found a job goodbye on a low pay out & as they didn't get made redundant no Social Security pay as they left the job?
Yet linesman & others can come on here & defend this Tragic Council & slate the Tory Council?
If only the blind could see?

loosehead wrote:

southy wrote:
With a Tory Council the plan job cut in total over 2 years was around 1,600, and that is with the work force taking a pay cut, A Labour Council will lose 1,500 jobs over 2 years (councillor Williams let that slip out, then Labour Right Wing party machine step in to try and hide it by saying he was miss quoted) we are now seeing the start of this job losses now.
Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections, and made a few statements like this one, they would team up with other Labour Council and fight the Government, so where is this teaming up of other councils to fight the government, in truth theres been no action from the Labour Party they been sitting on there back sides doing nothing, but then I am not surprise at all with self proclaim Labour Party members of being Capitalist and just team players, and will not lift a finger to help stopping the cuts but will implement cuts just as fast as the Torys or Lib/Dems will.
To Unite, Unison and the GMB Unions rank and file, I do like saying this but you was warned this would happen weather if you had a Tory or Labour Council, come the next election think twice before voting, if you know you have Councillors that will stick to there guns and support the workers and vote against cuts like Keith and Don have done, then vote for them, you have no excuse now, you know which Councillors that will vote in a cuts budget program and those that will not.

Ian Woodland thanks for the invite to your meeting tonight, but sorry I will have to decline the invite, but all the same have a good honest meeting.

Total lies Southy you know it was 800 so why are you now defending this Lying Labour Council with lies? Come on get a back bone & tell the truth even if it makes the tories look good.
Southy Labours 1,500 job losses did not include Temporary staff but the Tory 800 plus 800 temps many of which now work for Capita & didn't lose their jobs would have rounded the figure up to the mythical 1,600 you keep on spouting on about.
So in fact the final figure for redundancy or early retirement was about the 800 they actually said they would lose if the pay cuts were implemented so please tell the whole story not just the parts that make Labour look good & Tories look bad.
Didn't williams say the Tories would cut services? So what has he done?

The Tory it was around 800 in the first year and another 800 in the second year,and that was after the pay cut to save 200-400 jobs a total of 1,600 jobs lost in 2 years. With Labour is was a smaller number in the first year and the larger number in the second year amounting to 1,500 jobs lost in 2 years, with the hope of some retiring or leaving the job first.
The truth is both Williams and Smith was going to cut services, we knew that way inavance of the Elections and we said they would, That we are able to say we talled you so.
If you took the time to read the manifests off all partys, you can tell what is going to happen, and there was only £1 million indiffernces in the first year between Labour and Tory and £2 million differences in the second year, its only a little bit in favour of the Labour party, Labour was just the lesser of the 2 evils but it still was bad, and out off all the partys Labour and Torys was going to give the biggest cuts off all.

Over the Edge wrote:

southy wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:
Southy says

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Over the Edge says

Councillor Letts came to you Pete and enquired why you are putting candidates in particular wards you wouldn't win in but could possibly split the vote? he mentioned in particular Bitterne and Redbridge wards, he knew you wouldn't stand down in Redbridge but Perry might have possibly in Bitterne.

If he came to us with that idea in his head then he not much of a Political Party member, As to that point when he came to the TUSC meeting no sections had been done, only one ward did he mention and that was the Sholing Ward, but he was asking for a total step down or at lest step down from Labour strong holds, It was not known at that point who would be standing and where, apart from me which stood out like a sore thumb that I be standing in Redbridge because I am the one who live west of the city at the time, and Bitterne and Redbridge Letts did not mention I brought up Redbridge, after when he mention Sholing, I said to him if you want us to give what would they give in exchange, and he ask what did i mean, the reply was example if we step down in Sholing (which we did just to test him out, with out him knowning), would you step down in Redbridge and he said no, So I said you just want to take and not give any in exchange.

So was a total step down or partial one?

You seem to have contradicted yourself, your earlier comment said and I quote

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Which implies across the city not just in Sholing,,As I stated it wasn't across the city it was in particular wards, also just for good measure Perry came to me in Bitterne asking for my support prior to your lot announcing/selecting TUSC candidates for the election.

Fact

No contradiction, Letts started off by all the wards, letting them have a clear run, but the evening wore on, and the only ward he mention was the Sholing ward, it was me who bought up Redbridge ward.
Are you saying you are Councillor Simon Letts.
What went on before the TUSC meeting I do not know about, We did not know that Letts was turning up at the meeting to have a friendly chat till we had arrived at the meeting place, so what you could be on about is some thing that took place out side and before the TUSC meeting took place.

southy wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:

southy wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:
Southy says

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Over the Edge says

Councillor Letts came to you Pete and enquired why you are putting candidates in particular wards you wouldn't win in but could possibly split the vote? he mentioned in particular Bitterne and Redbridge wards, he knew you wouldn't stand down in Redbridge but Perry might have possibly in Bitterne.

If he came to us with that idea in his head then he not much of a Political Party member, As to that point when he came to the TUSC meeting no sections had been done, only one ward did he mention and that was the Sholing Ward, but he was asking for a total step down or at lest step down from Labour strong holds, It was not known at that point who would be standing and where, apart from me which stood out like a sore thumb that I be standing in Redbridge because I am the one who live west of the city at the time, and Bitterne and Redbridge Letts did not mention I brought up Redbridge, after when he mention Sholing, I said to him if you want us to give what would they give in exchange, and he ask what did i mean, the reply was example if we step down in Sholing (which we did just to test him out, with out him knowning), would you step down in Redbridge and he said no, So I said you just want to take and not give any in exchange.

So was a total step down or partial one?

You seem to have contradicted yourself, your earlier comment said and I quote

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Which implies across the city not just in Sholing,,As I stated it wasn't across the city it was in particular wards, also just for good measure Perry came to me in Bitterne asking for my support prior to your lot announcing/selecting TUSC candidates for the election.

Fact

No contradiction, Letts started off by all the wards, letting them have a clear run, but the evening wore on, and the only ward he mention was the Sholing ward, it was me who bought up Redbridge ward.
Are you saying you are Councillor Simon Letts.
What went on before the TUSC meeting I do not know about, We did not know that Letts was turning up at the meeting to have a friendly chat till we had arrived at the meeting place, so what you could be on about is some thing that took place out side and before the TUSC meeting took place.

And I tell you now, if there was some give and take and they was to let us have a run at a ward, I would off even step down in Redbridge if ask to do so. but it would of been on the basics of one for one

southy wrote:

southy wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:

southy wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:
Southy says

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Over the Edge says

Councillor Letts came to you Pete and enquired why you are putting candidates in particular wards you wouldn't win in but could possibly split the vote? he mentioned in particular Bitterne and Redbridge wards, he knew you wouldn't stand down in Redbridge but Perry might have possibly in Bitterne.

If he came to us with that idea in his head then he not much of a Political Party member, As to that point when he came to the TUSC meeting no sections had been done, only one ward did he mention and that was the Sholing Ward, but he was asking for a total step down or at lest step down from Labour strong holds, It was not known at that point who would be standing and where, apart from me which stood out like a sore thumb that I be standing in Redbridge because I am the one who live west of the city at the time, and Bitterne and Redbridge Letts did not mention I brought up Redbridge, after when he mention Sholing, I said to him if you want us to give what would they give in exchange, and he ask what did i mean, the reply was example if we step down in Sholing (which we did just to test him out, with out him knowning), would you step down in Redbridge and he said no, So I said you just want to take and not give any in exchange.

So was a total step down or partial one?

You seem to have contradicted yourself, your earlier comment said and I quote

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Which implies across the city not just in Sholing,,As I stated it wasn't across the city it was in particular wards, also just for good measure Perry came to me in Bitterne asking for my support prior to your lot announcing/selecting TUSC candidates for the election.

Fact

No contradiction, Letts started off by all the wards, letting them have a clear run, but the evening wore on, and the only ward he mention was the Sholing ward, it was me who bought up Redbridge ward.
Are you saying you are Councillor Simon Letts.
What went on before the TUSC meeting I do not know about, We did not know that Letts was turning up at the meeting to have a friendly chat till we had arrived at the meeting place, so what you could be on about is some thing that took place out side and before the TUSC meeting took place.

And I tell you now, if there was some give and take and they was to let us have a run at a ward, I would off even step down in Redbridge if ask to do so. but it would of been on the basics of one for one

Step down? You haven't won anything..?

southy wrote:

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
this country is 15 TRILLION in debt , i,d imagine total collapse very soon .

We are £1.2 Trillion in debt

1000 per cent of gdp is 15 TRILLION !!!!

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
this country is 15 TRILLION in debt , i,d imagine total collapse very soon .

We are £1.2 Trillion in debt

Nice to see the missing 'R' inserted in the word Trillion, perhaps a little more polishing of the punctuation and your diatribes might become meaningful.

you must be reading in the dark battery boy or smoking something strong ,uk pension liabilities alone are over 5 TRILLION , what is the interest payment on that ?

southy wrote:

southy wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:

southy wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:
Southy says

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Over the Edge says

Councillor Letts came to you Pete and enquired why you are putting candidates in particular wards you wouldn't win in but could possibly split the vote? he mentioned in particular Bitterne and Redbridge wards, he knew you wouldn't stand down in Redbridge but Perry might have possibly in Bitterne.

If he came to us with that idea in his head then he not much of a Political Party member, As to that point when he came to the TUSC meeting no sections had been done, only one ward did he mention and that was the Sholing Ward, but he was asking for a total step down or at lest step down from Labour strong holds, It was not known at that point who would be standing and where, apart from me which stood out like a sore thumb that I be standing in Redbridge because I am the one who live west of the city at the time, and Bitterne and Redbridge Letts did not mention I brought up Redbridge, after when he mention Sholing, I said to him if you want us to give what would they give in exchange, and he ask what did i mean, the reply was example if we step down in Sholing (which we did just to test him out, with out him knowning), would you step down in Redbridge and he said no, So I said you just want to take and not give any in exchange.

So was a total step down or partial one?

You seem to have contradicted yourself, your earlier comment said and I quote

''Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections''

Which implies across the city not just in Sholing,,As I stated it wasn't across the city it was in particular wards, also just for good measure Perry came to me in Bitterne asking for my support prior to your lot announcing/selecting TUSC candidates for the election.

Fact

No contradiction, Letts started off by all the wards, letting them have a clear run, but the evening wore on, and the only ward he mention was the Sholing ward, it was me who bought up Redbridge ward.
Are you saying you are Councillor Simon Letts.
What went on before the TUSC meeting I do not know about, We did not know that Letts was turning up at the meeting to have a friendly chat till we had arrived at the meeting place, so what you could be on about is some thing that took place out side and before the TUSC meeting took place.

And I tell you now, if there was some give and take and they was to let us have a run at a ward, I would off even step down in Redbridge if ask to do so. but it would of been on the basics of one for one

I give up.

It never happened as you said, you asked for Labour not stand in winnable wards just to let you and your losers stand, giving the Tories a seat, that is what you asked for and got told no.

Come on Pete you know the truth and no I'm not Simon Letts, if I was him I'd be too busy teaching or sorting the mess out left by the last administration to be sitting on my keyboard arguing with you.

southy wrote:

loosehead wrote:

southy wrote:
With a Tory Council the plan job cut in total over 2 years was around 1,600, and that is with the work force taking a pay cut, A Labour Council will lose 1,500 jobs over 2 years (councillor Williams let that slip out, then Labour Right Wing party machine step in to try and hide it by saying he was miss quoted) we are now seeing the start of this job losses now.
Councillor Letts came to a TUSC meeting before the last local elections, and ask us to step down and let them have a clear run at the elections, and made a few statements like this one, they would team up with other Labour Council and fight the Government, so where is this teaming up of other councils to fight the government, in truth theres been no action from the Labour Party they been sitting on there back sides doing nothing, but then I am not surprise at all with self proclaim Labour Party members of being Capitalist and just team players, and will not lift a finger to help stopping the cuts but will implement cuts just as fast as the Torys or Lib/Dems will.
To Unite, Unison and the GMB Unions rank and file, I do like saying this but you was warned this would happen weather if you had a Tory or Labour Council, come the next election think twice before voting, if you know you have Councillors that will stick to there guns and support the workers and vote against cuts like Keith and Don have done, then vote for them, you have no excuse now, you know which Councillors that will vote in a cuts budget program and those that will not.

Ian Woodland thanks for the invite to your meeting tonight, but sorry I will have to decline the invite, but all the same have a good honest meeting.

Total lies Southy you know it was 800 so why are you now defending this Lying Labour Council with lies? Come on get a back bone & tell the truth even if it makes the tories look good.
Southy Labours 1,500 job losses did not include Temporary staff but the Tory 800 plus 800 temps many of which now work for Capita & didn't lose their jobs would have rounded the figure up to the mythical 1,600 you keep on spouting on about.
So in fact the final figure for redundancy or early retirement was about the 800 they actually said they would lose if the pay cuts were implemented so please tell the whole story not just the parts that make Labour look good & Tories look bad.
Didn't williams say the Tories would cut services? So what has he done?

The Tory it was around 800 in the first year and another 800 in the second year,and that was after the pay cut to save 200-400 jobs a total of 1,600 jobs lost in 2 years. With Labour is was a smaller number in the first year and the larger number in the second year amounting to 1,500 jobs lost in 2 years, with the hope of some retiring or leaving the job first.
The truth is both Williams and Smith was going to cut services, we knew that way inavance of the Elections and we said they would, That we are able to say we talled you so.
If you took the time to read the manifests off all partys, you can tell what is going to happen, and there was only £1 million indiffernces in the first year between Labour and Tory and £2 million differences in the second year, its only a little bit in favour of the Labour party, Labour was just the lesser of the 2 evils but it still was bad, and out off all the partys Labour and Torys was going to give the biggest cuts off all.

Sorry southy but 800 redundancies in 4 years deosn't mean 800 every two years does it?
in the first two years we lost 400 many were Temps or transferred to Capita so another 400 was looking towards redundancy & they had earmarked many who wanted early retirement & the figure was lowered to 80 enforced redundancies this council has already made more than that redundant & now plan at least another 300

Any update on this meeting?

IronLady2010 wrote:
Any update on this meeting?

I can only guess! if the members had voted to strike the pro Labour supporters would be on here calling them all sorts of names so no action possibly the result?

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Any update on this meeting?

I can only guess! if the members had voted to strike the pro Labour supporters would be on here calling them all sorts of names so no action possibly the result?

Let's hope so. After last year, they should have learnt it costs more jobs to strike rather than negotiate :-)

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Any update on this meeting?

I can only guess! if the members had voted to strike the pro Labour supporters would be on here calling them all sorts of names so no action possibly the result?

Let's hope so. After last year, they should have learnt it costs more jobs to strike rather than negotiate :-)

But their Unions did negotiate this budget or so Cllr Letts believes on his Telly interview ?