Unions drawing up action campaign (From Daily Echo)

Absolutely no class these people, utter riff raff going from one mistake to the next.

Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

Maybe Union could run goverment and no one will have a job!!!!

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

Scoff... nor do the UNIONS!!

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

A motion agreed by around 300 members to one at a meeting at Above Bar Church rejected Tory claims that the restoration of pay cuts they imposed on council workers last July, which led to a summer of strikes and industrial unrest, had caused the proposed record job losses.
No surprise there then didn't think they'd say it did effect the numbers to go as that would have proven just how wrong the strikes were wouldn't it?
The motion also called for improved severance packages for staff facing compulsory redundancy and an enhanced redeployment scheme to be fully implemented.
Didn't the Unions just vote to accept a lower Redundancy Package & lower pension to get their pay restored?
Well looking at the idiot Mike Tucker with his placard saying services before council tax reductions?
Didn't the council just say they were raising them by two percent?
So exactly who's getting a reduction?
Then to make that stupid comment about the Echo?
These are the guys who've walked their men into unemployment to have their own pay restored at the sake of their members jobs?
Please strike show this city exactly how out of touch you really are.
300 voted for this? exactly how many workers are there?
Maybe Labour should ballot their workers asking If we cut your pay we can cut the amount of redundancy Are you in favour of this? YES or NO?

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Ummm ...... I only mentioned about a possible one day strike and the falling out with the Echo.
.
You dont need to go off on one with me

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Ummm ...... I only mentioned about a possible one day strike and the falling out with the Echo.
.
You dont need to go off on one with me

I'm not going off on one, just giving my opinion. I have acknowledged your opinion ;-)

loosehead wrote:
A motion agreed by around 300 members to one at a meeting at Above Bar Church rejected Tory claims that the restoration of pay cuts they imposed on council workers last July, which led to a summer of strikes and industrial unrest, had caused the proposed record job losses.
No surprise there then didn't think they'd say it did effect the numbers to go as that would have proven just how wrong the strikes were wouldn't it?
The motion also called for improved severance packages for staff facing compulsory redundancy and an enhanced redeployment scheme to be fully implemented.
Didn't the Unions just vote to accept a lower Redundancy Package & lower pension to get their pay restored?
Well looking at the idiot Mike Tucker with his placard saying services before council tax reductions?
Didn't the council just say they were raising them by two percent?
So exactly who's getting a reduction?
Then to make that stupid comment about the Echo?
These are the guys who've walked their men into unemployment to have their own pay restored at the sake of their members jobs?
Please strike show this city exactly how out of touch you really are.
300 voted for this? exactly how many workers are there?
Maybe Labour should ballot their workers asking If we cut your pay we can cut the amount of redundancy Are you in favour of this? YES or NO?

Number of jobs saved in 2013/14 caused by reinstated pay = NIL! The £650,000+ the Council would have spent on legal costs is no longer required due to a sensible negotiated agreement. You just can't handle fact Royston Smith cocked up by following his own pig headed anti union stance and lost control of the Council. Unless you know the facts you ought to reserve judgement.

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Read the article.

They are campaigning against the cuts imposed on the City Council.

Central Government have cut their funding, which means the City Council has less money, which means that they cannon pay for the same amount of services and employees as they would like.

If the City Council were to increase the Council Tax and raise, for round figures, £1m, Central Government will reduce the city's funding by £1m.

So, who is to blame?

The City Council, because it has had its money considerably reduced, and is not permitted to raise extra money?

Central government, who have cut the city's grant by a considerable amount, and will not permit them to raise extra money so that jobs are not cut and services are maintained?

If the Unions are in bed with Labour, as you claim, who do you think the CBI are in bed with?

Linesman wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Read the article.

They are campaigning against the cuts imposed on the City Council.

Central Government have cut their funding, which means the City Council has less money, which means that they cannon pay for the same amount of services and employees as they would like.

If the City Council were to increase the Council Tax and raise, for round figures, £1m, Central Government will reduce the city's funding by £1m.

So, who is to blame?

The City Council, because it has had its money considerably reduced, and is not permitted to raise extra money?

Central government, who have cut the city's grant by a considerable amount, and will not permit them to raise extra money so that jobs are not cut and services are maintained?

If the Unions are in bed with Labour, as you claim, who do you think the CBI are in bed with?

So why did they kick off with Royston under the exact same circumstances?

Royston Smith did not have to cut pay, he chose to do it because he is anti union. The money that was spent on sacking all the staff, drawing up new contracts, paying for private refuse collectors during the strikes,legal fees etc. were all considerable additional unnecessary expenses which he found the money for because his ego wouldn't let him negotiate constructively. He also had to find money for Sea City afte the private sector pulled out, so he borrowed it! If he had been less blinkered and hadn't ignored the electoral time bomb of cutting pay, he might still be leading the Council.

Maine Lobster wrote:
Royston Smith did not have to cut pay, he chose to do it because he is anti union. The money that was spent on sacking all the staff, drawing up new contracts, paying for private refuse collectors during the strikes,legal fees etc. were all considerable additional unnecessary expenses which he found the money for because his ego wouldn't let him negotiate constructively. He also had to find money for Sea City afte the private sector pulled out, so he borrowed it! If he had been less blinkered and hadn't ignored the electoral time bomb of cutting pay, he might still be leading the Council.

I do agree with you, he didn't have to cut pay, my point is he was faced with the same problems Labour are now facing.

Royston attempted to save some jobs by way of a small pay cut, wether that worked we will never know as the pay has now been re-instated and jobs are still being lost.

My point is, both Councils have faced the same problem, Royston gets bashed and Labour get away with it and the blame moves elsewhere.

By the way, I'm only giving my opinion and not suggesting I am in the right, this is only my opinion. x

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

Looks like you truly are a boring, boring idiot

IronLady2010 wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:
Royston Smith did not have to cut pay, he chose to do it because he is anti union. The money that was spent on sacking all the staff, drawing up new contracts, paying for private refuse collectors during the strikes,legal fees etc. were all considerable additional unnecessary expenses which he found the money for because his ego wouldn't let him negotiate constructively. He also had to find money for Sea City afte the private sector pulled out, so he borrowed it! If he had been less blinkered and hadn't ignored the electoral time bomb of cutting pay, he might still be leading the Council.

I do agree with you, he didn't have to cut pay, my point is he was faced with the same problems Labour are now facing.

Royston attempted to save some jobs by way of a small pay cut, wether that worked we will never know as the pay has now been re-instated and jobs are still being lost.

My point is, both Councils have faced the same problem, Royston gets bashed and Labour get away with it and the blame moves elsewhere.

By the way, I'm only giving my opinion and not suggesting I am in the right, this is only my opinion. x

You are right, any Council would be faced with similar cuts when Central Government cut your grant by 28%.
The difference is that Royston Smith's pay cuts still resulted in job cuts and he spent more on implimenting them and fighting the industrial action than he saved, not to mention the £100m spent in 4 years on capital projects.
Labour certainly aren't getting away without blame. They are already getting lots of flak and will no doubt continue to do so.
When it boils down to it, all these things are the stuff of local politics, whichever side you chose to stand on. Times are tough and most of us are feeling it. At least we can sit on different sides of a fence and have a sensible debate, unlike some of the posters who just hurl insults at each other!:-)

Maine Lobster wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:
Royston Smith did not have to cut pay, he chose to do it because he is anti union. The money that was spent on sacking all the staff, drawing up new contracts, paying for private refuse collectors during the strikes,legal fees etc. were all considerable additional unnecessary expenses which he found the money for because his ego wouldn't let him negotiate constructively. He also had to find money for Sea City afte the private sector pulled out, so he borrowed it! If he had been less blinkered and hadn't ignored the electoral time bomb of cutting pay, he might still be leading the Council.

I do agree with you, he didn't have to cut pay, my point is he was faced with the same problems Labour are now facing.

Royston attempted to save some jobs by way of a small pay cut, wether that worked we will never know as the pay has now been re-instated and jobs are still being lost.

My point is, both Councils have faced the same problem, Royston gets bashed and Labour get away with it and the blame moves elsewhere.

By the way, I'm only giving my opinion and not suggesting I am in the right, this is only my opinion. x

You are right, any Council would be faced with similar cuts when Central Government cut your grant by 28%.
The difference is that Royston Smith's pay cuts still resulted in job cuts and he spent more on implimenting them and fighting the industrial action than he saved, not to mention the £100m spent in 4 years on capital projects.
Labour certainly aren't getting away without blame. They are already getting lots of flak and will no doubt continue to do so.
When it boils down to it, all these things are the stuff of local politics, whichever side you chose to stand on. Times are tough and most of us are feeling it. At least we can sit on different sides of a fence and have a sensible debate, unlike some of the posters who just hurl insults at each other!:-)

Of course Royston still had to cut jobs, he never ever said that wouldn't happen. I believe what he tried to do was minimise the job losses by making small pay cuts.

What is frustrating to me is the Unions were hell bent on blaming Royston personally and right now are siding with Labours cuts and placing the blame elsewhere. Why couldn't they have sided with Royston and placed the blame elsewhere? Can you see my point?

Had Royston Smith not implimented pay cuts people would have gritted their teeth and put up with it, as they are doing now.
Where we differ is that I don't believe he genuinely thought it would save jobs, he just wanted to take on the unions. He ought to have expected a fight. The unions are there after all to represent their members and while that includes protecting jobs, most other Councils recognised that pay cuts were not the way to go. "Doing a Southampton" became a phrase most authorities knew was a recipe for disaster.

It's actually nice to have a sensible discussion on here, I'm in shock ;-)

Would anyone else care to join in sensibly and add to the discussion?

IronLady2010 wrote:
Would anyone else care to join in sensibly and add to the discussion?

Now you are really pushing the boundaries!!

Maine Lobster wrote:
Had Royston Smith not implimented pay cuts people would have gritted their teeth and put up with it, as they are doing now.
Where we differ is that I don't believe he genuinely thought it would save jobs, he just wanted to take on the unions. He ought to have expected a fight. The unions are there after all to represent their members and while that includes protecting jobs, most other Councils recognised that pay cuts were not the way to go. "Doing a Southampton" became a phrase most authorities knew was a recipe for disaster.

None of us know what went on behind the scenes. Maybe Royston and the Union bosses didn't get along and things became personal, who knows. All I know is what I read on here and watching the Union bosses walking out of meetings without negotiating.

We will disagree on one thing though, I believe Royston had the best interests of the Tax payers at heart and that is what he was paid to do.

Maine Lobster wrote:

loosehead wrote:
A motion agreed by around 300 members to one at a meeting at Above Bar Church rejected Tory claims that the restoration of pay cuts they imposed on council workers last July, which led to a summer of strikes and industrial unrest, had caused the proposed record job losses.
No surprise there then didn't think they'd say it did effect the numbers to go as that would have proven just how wrong the strikes were wouldn't it?
The motion also called for improved severance packages for staff facing compulsory redundancy and an enhanced redeployment scheme to be fully implemented.
Didn't the Unions just vote to accept a lower Redundancy Package & lower pension to get their pay restored?
Well looking at the idiot Mike Tucker with his placard saying services before council tax reductions?
Didn't the council just say they were raising them by two percent?
So exactly who's getting a reduction?
Then to make that stupid comment about the Echo?
These are the guys who've walked their men into unemployment to have their own pay restored at the sake of their members jobs?
Please strike show this city exactly how out of touch you really are.
300 voted for this? exactly how many workers are there?
Maybe Labour should ballot their workers asking If we cut your pay we can cut the amount of redundancy Are you in favour of this? YES or NO?

Number of jobs saved in 2013/14 caused by reinstated pay = NIL! The £650,000+ the Council would have spent on legal costs is no longer required due to a sensible negotiated agreement. You just can't handle fact Royston Smith cocked up by following his own pig headed anti union stance and lost control of the Council. Unless you know the facts you ought to reserve judgement.

Sensible negotiated agreement?
Do you mean the one put to the Union members?
The one where they get less redundancy pay?
where they get lower Pensions?
Where they drop legal action according to the Unions they were going to win?
The motion also called for improved severance packages for staff facing compulsory redundancy and an enhanced redeployment scheme to be fully implemented.
Severance Packages let me see what that is?
Redundancy pay the very thing the Unions got their members to accept lower/reduced severance pay as part of that agreement but now want it back?
So came on Maine what is sensible about agreeing to get your members to take lower redundancy & pension pay outs & at the same time working with the council on the budget announcement?
The Unions must have known about the job cuts yet now they're seeking to reverse your sensible agreement?
Sounds very familiar doesn't it?
last meeting with the Tory council where all parties agreed a package only for Unite to break it straight after the meeting.
I'm not Anti Unions but I am against political strikes at the cost to the members jobs okay?

Maine Lobster wrote:
Had Royston Smith not implimented pay cuts people would have gritted their teeth and put up with it, as they are doing now.
Where we differ is that I don't believe he genuinely thought it would save jobs, he just wanted to take on the unions. He ought to have expected a fight. The unions are there after all to represent their members and while that includes protecting jobs, most other Councils recognised that pay cuts were not the way to go. "Doing a Southampton" became a phrase most authorities knew was a recipe for disaster.

Absolute Ball!
All along Royston said to the Unions work with us lets find a way to minimise job losses what was the Unions answer?
"hit the banks,we aren't helping you to do your jobs tell us your ideas "
Time & time again the tory council came up with ideas only for the Unions to say NO hit the banks?
So at the eleventh hour they implemented the last proposal before we were in deep trouble as we are now.
He was never Anti Union God how many talks did he hold to sort it?
Did he not go to ACAS to talk? did the Unions?
No they put forward pre requisites to any talks what a joke these two conveners are.

IronLady2010 wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:
Had Royston Smith not implimented pay cuts people would have gritted their teeth and put up with it, as they are doing now.
Where we differ is that I don't believe he genuinely thought it would save jobs, he just wanted to take on the unions. He ought to have expected a fight. The unions are there after all to represent their members and while that includes protecting jobs, most other Councils recognised that pay cuts were not the way to go. "Doing a Southampton" became a phrase most authorities knew was a recipe for disaster.

None of us know what went on behind the scenes. Maybe Royston and the Union bosses didn't get along and things became personal, who knows. All I know is what I read on here and watching the Union bosses walking out of meetings without negotiating.

We will disagree on one thing though, I believe Royston had the best interests of the Tax payers at heart and that is what he was paid to do.

I'm sure your hunches over personalities may be close to the truth. Often the real issue can become shrouded if it becomes a testosterone fight. What you read on here will often be a sample of the truth that can distort the full picture.
Yes, we disagree over Royston Smith's motives. Of course many of those Council Tax payers are also Council employees and the city's electorate. That seemed to be a factor he neglected to his party's cost in advance of May 3rd!

loosehead wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:
Had Royston Smith not implimented pay cuts people would have gritted their teeth and put up with it, as they are doing now.
Where we differ is that I don't believe he genuinely thought it would save jobs, he just wanted to take on the unions. He ought to have expected a fight. The unions are there after all to represent their members and while that includes protecting jobs, most other Councils recognised that pay cuts were not the way to go. "Doing a Southampton" became a phrase most authorities knew was a recipe for disaster.

Absolute Ball!
All along Royston said to the Unions work with us lets find a way to minimise job losses what was the Unions answer?
"hit the banks,we aren't helping you to do your jobs tell us your ideas "
Time & time again the tory council came up with ideas only for the Unions to say NO hit the banks?
So at the eleventh hour they implemented the last proposal before we were in deep trouble as we are now.
He was never Anti Union God how many talks did he hold to sort it?
Did he not go to ACAS to talk? did the Unions?
No they put forward pre requisites to any talks what a joke these two conveners are.

Loosehead my friend, chill. Now is the time to work together, Royston has already proven he is willing to support Labour to a degree in the interests of us residents.

We can all debate in a nice way :-) x

loosehead wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:
Had Royston Smith not implimented pay cuts people would have gritted their teeth and put up with it, as they are doing now.
Where we differ is that I don't believe he genuinely thought it would save jobs, he just wanted to take on the unions. He ought to have expected a fight. The unions are there after all to represent their members and while that includes protecting jobs, most other Councils recognised that pay cuts were not the way to go. "Doing a Southampton" became a phrase most authorities knew was a recipe for disaster.

Absolute Ball!
All along Royston said to the Unions work with us lets find a way to minimise job losses what was the Unions answer?
"hit the banks,we aren't helping you to do your jobs tell us your ideas "
Time & time again the tory council came up with ideas only for the Unions to say NO hit the banks?
So at the eleventh hour they implemented the last proposal before we were in deep trouble as we are now.
He was never Anti Union God how many talks did he hold to sort it?
Did he not go to ACAS to talk? did the Unions?
No they put forward pre requisites to any talks what a joke these two conveners are.

Yes, expected you to be insulting as usual. Were you at the meetings or are you just believing Royston Smith's propoganda?

IronLady2010 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Read the article.

They are campaigning against the cuts imposed on the City Council.

Central Government have cut their funding, which means the City Council has less money, which means that they cannon pay for the same amount of services and employees as they would like.

If the City Council were to increase the Council Tax and raise, for round figures, £1m, Central Government will reduce the city's funding by £1m.

So, who is to blame?

The City Council, because it has had its money considerably reduced, and is not permitted to raise extra money?

Central government, who have cut the city's grant by a considerable amount, and will not permit them to raise extra money so that jobs are not cut and services are maintained?

If the Unions are in bed with Labour, as you claim, who do you think the CBI are in bed with?

So why did they kick off with Royston under the exact same circumstances?

Because they saw it as a means to an end.
They wanted to get Labour elected & saw a Refuse strike as the way to go.
If Lone Ranger & Maine Lobster were telling the truth they would be saying that the Tories after talks with the Unions & if the latest agreement had been accepted by the members the council would have implemented the 80 job losses the Unions insisted on to raise the pay cut rate of starting to £22,000 that was the only figure mentioned for job cuts next year,
bit different from 300 & if no grant a hell of a lot more.so the pay cuts would have saved jobs.
Ironlady the Unions have just got their members to agree a package of lower redundancy pay & pensions if their pay is restored & now they want the redundancy pay enhanced is that not breaking the agreement?

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Read the article.

They are campaigning against the cuts imposed on the City Council.

Central Government have cut their funding, which means the City Council has less money, which means that they cannon pay for the same amount of services and employees as they would like.

If the City Council were to increase the Council Tax and raise, for round figures, £1m, Central Government will reduce the city's funding by £1m.

So, who is to blame?

The City Council, because it has had its money considerably reduced, and is not permitted to raise extra money?

Central government, who have cut the city's grant by a considerable amount, and will not permit them to raise extra money so that jobs are not cut and services are maintained?

If the Unions are in bed with Labour, as you claim, who do you think the CBI are in bed with?

So why did they kick off with Royston under the exact same circumstances?

Because they saw it as a means to an end.
They wanted to get Labour elected & saw a Refuse strike as the way to go.
If Lone Ranger & Maine Lobster were telling the truth they would be saying that the Tories after talks with the Unions & if the latest agreement had been accepted by the members the council would have implemented the 80 job losses the Unions insisted on to raise the pay cut rate of starting to £22,000 that was the only figure mentioned for job cuts next year,
bit different from 300 & if no grant a hell of a lot more.so the pay cuts would have saved jobs.
Ironlady the Unions have just got their members to agree a package of lower redundancy pay & pensions if their pay is restored & now they want the redundancy pay enhanced is that not breaking the agreement?

Firstly, you are wrong about the lower redundancy being agreed. The lower redundancy was imposed after lots of senior managers took enhanced payoffs before April. Some walked away with six figure sums. They were largely the only people who could afford to take the package.
You are also wrong about the unions wanting to strike to get Labour re-elected. Want the Tories out, yes, but there would have been no strikes without the pay cuts.

Maine Lobster wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Read the article.

They are campaigning against the cuts imposed on the City Council.

Central Government have cut their funding, which means the City Council has less money, which means that they cannon pay for the same amount of services and employees as they would like.

If the City Council were to increase the Council Tax and raise, for round figures, £1m, Central Government will reduce the city's funding by £1m.

So, who is to blame?

The City Council, because it has had its money considerably reduced, and is not permitted to raise extra money?

Central government, who have cut the city's grant by a considerable amount, and will not permit them to raise extra money so that jobs are not cut and services are maintained?

If the Unions are in bed with Labour, as you claim, who do you think the CBI are in bed with?

So why did they kick off with Royston under the exact same circumstances?

Because they saw it as a means to an end.
They wanted to get Labour elected & saw a Refuse strike as the way to go.
If Lone Ranger & Maine Lobster were telling the truth they would be saying that the Tories after talks with the Unions & if the latest agreement had been accepted by the members the council would have implemented the 80 job losses the Unions insisted on to raise the pay cut rate of starting to £22,000 that was the only figure mentioned for job cuts next year,
bit different from 300 & if no grant a hell of a lot more.so the pay cuts would have saved jobs.
Ironlady the Unions have just got their members to agree a package of lower redundancy pay & pensions if their pay is restored & now they want the redundancy pay enhanced is that not breaking the agreement?

Firstly, you are wrong about the lower redundancy being agreed. The lower redundancy was imposed after lots of senior managers took enhanced payoffs before April. Some walked away with six figure sums. They were largely the only people who could afford to take the package.
You are also wrong about the unions wanting to strike to get Labour re-elected. Want the Tories out, yes, but there would have been no strikes without the pay cuts.

You cannot say there would have been no strikes if there were no pay cuts, none of us know what may or may not have happened.

IronLady2010 wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Read the article.

They are campaigning against the cuts imposed on the City Council.

Central Government have cut their funding, which means the City Council has less money, which means that they cannon pay for the same amount of services and employees as they would like.

If the City Council were to increase the Council Tax and raise, for round figures, £1m, Central Government will reduce the city's funding by £1m.

So, who is to blame?

The City Council, because it has had its money considerably reduced, and is not permitted to raise extra money?

Central government, who have cut the city's grant by a considerable amount, and will not permit them to raise extra money so that jobs are not cut and services are maintained?

If the Unions are in bed with Labour, as you claim, who do you think the CBI are in bed with?

So why did they kick off with Royston under the exact same circumstances?

Because they saw it as a means to an end.
They wanted to get Labour elected & saw a Refuse strike as the way to go.
If Lone Ranger & Maine Lobster were telling the truth they would be saying that the Tories after talks with the Unions & if the latest agreement had been accepted by the members the council would have implemented the 80 job losses the Unions insisted on to raise the pay cut rate of starting to £22,000 that was the only figure mentioned for job cuts next year,
bit different from 300 & if no grant a hell of a lot more.so the pay cuts would have saved jobs.
Ironlady the Unions have just got their members to agree a package of lower redundancy pay & pensions if their pay is restored & now they want the redundancy pay enhanced is that not breaking the agreement?

Firstly, you are wrong about the lower redundancy being agreed. The lower redundancy was imposed after lots of senior managers took enhanced payoffs before April. Some walked away with six figure sums. They were largely the only people who could afford to take the package.
You are also wrong about the unions wanting to strike to get Labour re-elected. Want the Tories out, yes, but there would have been no strikes without the pay cuts.

You cannot say there would have been no strikes if there were no pay cuts, none of us know what may or may not have happened.

Just a hunch, like yours about the personality clashes!

Maine Lobster wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Read the article.

They are campaigning against the cuts imposed on the City Council.

Central Government have cut their funding, which means the City Council has less money, which means that they cannon pay for the same amount of services and employees as they would like.

If the City Council were to increase the Council Tax and raise, for round figures, £1m, Central Government will reduce the city's funding by £1m.

So, who is to blame?

The City Council, because it has had its money considerably reduced, and is not permitted to raise extra money?

Central government, who have cut the city's grant by a considerable amount, and will not permit them to raise extra money so that jobs are not cut and services are maintained?

If the Unions are in bed with Labour, as you claim, who do you think the CBI are in bed with?

So why did they kick off with Royston under the exact same circumstances?

Because they saw it as a means to an end.
They wanted to get Labour elected & saw a Refuse strike as the way to go.
If Lone Ranger & Maine Lobster were telling the truth they would be saying that the Tories after talks with the Unions & if the latest agreement had been accepted by the members the council would have implemented the 80 job losses the Unions insisted on to raise the pay cut rate of starting to £22,000 that was the only figure mentioned for job cuts next year,
bit different from 300 & if no grant a hell of a lot more.so the pay cuts would have saved jobs.
Ironlady the Unions have just got their members to agree a package of lower redundancy pay & pensions if their pay is restored & now they want the redundancy pay enhanced is that not breaking the agreement?

Firstly, you are wrong about the lower redundancy being agreed. The lower redundancy was imposed after lots of senior managers took enhanced payoffs before April. Some walked away with six figure sums. They were largely the only people who could afford to take the package.
You are also wrong about the unions wanting to strike to get Labour re-elected. Want the Tories out, yes, but there would have been no strikes without the pay cuts.

So the letter Union members ( some received by mistake that was sent to the Labour Party telling them the Union would do all they could to oust the elected Tory Council didn't mean strike?
Did Mike Tucker not say it was a strike against a political party(Tories)
He has often shouted about it being political so sorry your wrong.
Pity he led you all to the edge of the cliff & now he's getting you to jump off it.
Unlike you we all warned the Refuse workers & council staff what Labour was about but the Unions convinced them they'd be alright Labour would look after them even after Williams had said 1-10 refuse jobs to go & 1,500 more job cuts how could he have a vote before the budget announcement & why can't his members see what he's doing?

Maine Lobster wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Read the article.

They are campaigning against the cuts imposed on the City Council.

Central Government have cut their funding, which means the City Council has less money, which means that they cannon pay for the same amount of services and employees as they would like.

If the City Council were to increase the Council Tax and raise, for round figures, £1m, Central Government will reduce the city's funding by £1m.

So, who is to blame?

The City Council, because it has had its money considerably reduced, and is not permitted to raise extra money?

Central government, who have cut the city's grant by a considerable amount, and will not permit them to raise extra money so that jobs are not cut and services are maintained?

If the Unions are in bed with Labour, as you claim, who do you think the CBI are in bed with?

So why did they kick off with Royston under the exact same circumstances?

Because they saw it as a means to an end.
They wanted to get Labour elected & saw a Refuse strike as the way to go.
If Lone Ranger & Maine Lobster were telling the truth they would be saying that the Tories after talks with the Unions & if the latest agreement had been accepted by the members the council would have implemented the 80 job losses the Unions insisted on to raise the pay cut rate of starting to £22,000 that was the only figure mentioned for job cuts next year,
bit different from 300 & if no grant a hell of a lot more.so the pay cuts would have saved jobs.
Ironlady the Unions have just got their members to agree a package of lower redundancy pay & pensions if their pay is restored & now they want the redundancy pay enhanced is that not breaking the agreement?

Firstly, you are wrong about the lower redundancy being agreed. The lower redundancy was imposed after lots of senior managers took enhanced payoffs before April. Some walked away with six figure sums. They were largely the only people who could afford to take the package.
You are also wrong about the unions wanting to strike to get Labour re-elected. Want the Tories out, yes, but there would have been no strikes without the pay cuts.

That's not what the Unions said to Labour now was it?

loosehead wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Please tell me we're not going back to the strike action we saw previously, it solved nothing then and will solve nothing in the future.

Come on guys, we all knew more cuts were coming. Think of a better way to help those who are facing job losses rather than build false hopes that striking will make it go away.

The only mention of strike action was> Quote:- They agreed to hold a demonstration and lobby of the council’s budgetsetting meeting in February alongside a possible one-day strike.
.
So possible one day.
.
Looks like they wont be letting the Echo know anyway.
.
Looks like the Echo dont like a bit of criticism chucked their way

I don't feel The Echo on this occasion have done anything wrong. They have quoted from every side which is what they should do.

Cast your mind back to when Royston was in control of the Council, the Unions blamed him for all the cuts, it was ALL Royston's fault.

Now Labour are making cuts, there is no mention of Labour being at fault, but everyone else is to blame, even The Echo is being accused. Talk about working together, is this in the best interests of the residents, when the Unions are in bed with Labour?

These latest cuts were Labours choice, they could have made pay cuts to save a few jobs, made cuts elsewhere etc. But oh no, ALL of Labours cuts are fine as it's everyone else fault.

Read the article.

They are campaigning against the cuts imposed on the City Council.

Central Government have cut their funding, which means the City Council has less money, which means that they cannon pay for the same amount of services and employees as they would like.

If the City Council were to increase the Council Tax and raise, for round figures, £1m, Central Government will reduce the city's funding by £1m.

So, who is to blame?

The City Council, because it has had its money considerably reduced, and is not permitted to raise extra money?

Central government, who have cut the city's grant by a considerable amount, and will not permit them to raise extra money so that jobs are not cut and services are maintained?

If the Unions are in bed with Labour, as you claim, who do you think the CBI are in bed with?

So why did they kick off with Royston under the exact same circumstances?

Because they saw it as a means to an end.
They wanted to get Labour elected & saw a Refuse strike as the way to go.
If Lone Ranger & Maine Lobster were telling the truth they would be saying that the Tories after talks with the Unions & if the latest agreement had been accepted by the members the council would have implemented the 80 job losses the Unions insisted on to raise the pay cut rate of starting to £22,000 that was the only figure mentioned for job cuts next year,
bit different from 300 & if no grant a hell of a lot more.so the pay cuts would have saved jobs.
Ironlady the Unions have just got their members to agree a package of lower redundancy pay & pensions if their pay is restored & now they want the redundancy pay enhanced is that not breaking the agreement?

Firstly, you are wrong about the lower redundancy being agreed. The lower redundancy was imposed after lots of senior managers took enhanced payoffs before April. Some walked away with six figure sums. They were largely the only people who could afford to take the package.
You are also wrong about the unions wanting to strike to get Labour re-elected. Want the Tories out, yes, but there would have been no strikes without the pay cuts.

So the letter Union members ( some received by mistake that was sent to the Labour Party telling them the Union would do all they could to oust the elected Tory Council didn't mean strike?
Did Mike Tucker not say it was a strike against a political party(Tories)
He has often shouted about it being political so sorry your wrong.
Pity he led you all to the edge of the cliff & now he's getting you to jump off it.
Unlike you we all warned the Refuse workers & council staff what Labour was about but the Unions convinced them they'd be alright Labour would look after them even after Williams had said 1-10 refuse jobs to go & 1,500 more job cuts how could he have a vote before the budget announcement & why can't his members see what he's doing?

As I have said above whilst in discussion with Maine, the Unions have indeed taken a dislike to Royston and yet, in the same circumstances have decided to stand by Labours job cuts, which as I have said previously, I do not understand.

Maybe I should add an exclaimer: I apologise to the Unions, I am not taking anyone's side, just giving my opinion as a resident of Southampton.

I wouldn't want you to think I'm against you, like The Echo ;-)

*dis

It is a case of 'cause and effect'.

The cause was the action taken at Westminster to cut government funding to councils while, at the same time, not allowing them to raise council tax to protect jobs and services.

The effect, in Southampton, was for the Royston Smith to do a 'Maggie Thatcher' and attempt to break the Union, with a disasterous result. Instead of dialogue he attempted dictatorship, which was unacceptable.

All councils suffered the same restrictions, so the question has to be asked, why did it have such a disasterous effect in Southampton, but not in other cities?

The Unions in Southampton say that they may be taking action, but not against the City Council, but against the Government who are the root cause of the problem.

Of course, the Royston Admiration Society will claim that it is all the fault of the Union, but doubt they can explain why Southampton had the problem but other places did not.

Linesman wrote:
It is a case of 'cause and effect'.

The cause was the action taken at Westminster to cut government funding to councils while, at the same time, not allowing them to raise council tax to protect jobs and services.

The effect, in Southampton, was for the Royston Smith to do a 'Maggie Thatcher' and attempt to break the Union, with a disasterous result. Instead of dialogue he attempted dictatorship, which was unacceptable.

All councils suffered the same restrictions, so the question has to be asked, why did it have such a disasterous effect in Southampton, but not in other cities?

The Unions in Southampton say that they may be taking action, but not against the City Council, but against the Government who are the root cause of the problem.

Of course, the Royston Admiration Society will claim that it is all the fault of the Union, but doubt they can explain why Southampton had the problem but other places did not.

Don't be daft! The Unions wouldn't talk to Royston, how many meetings did they walk out of?

The same cuts are being made now, yet the Unions are side by side with Labour, this is my entire point.

Just because Royston is Conservative he was snubbed by the Unions, yet it wasn't Royston who cut the Council budget, it was those above and he had to go with them, with no support from the Unions.

My question is why do the Unions support Labour in the exact position, but yet snub Royston? It doesn't make sense.

Linesman wrote:
It is a case of 'cause and effect'.

The cause was the action taken at Westminster to cut government funding to councils while, at the same time, not allowing them to raise council tax to protect jobs and services.

The effect, in Southampton, was for the Royston Smith to do a 'Maggie Thatcher' and attempt to break the Union, with a disasterous result. Instead of dialogue he attempted dictatorship, which was unacceptable.

All councils suffered the same restrictions, so the question has to be asked, why did it have such a disasterous effect in Southampton, but not in other cities?

The Unions in Southampton say that they may be taking action, but not against the City Council, but against the Government who are the root cause of the problem.

Of course, the Royston Admiration Society will claim that it is all the fault of the Union, but doubt they can explain why Southampton had the problem but other places did not.

you have understood about 5% of what you need to if you want to comment from a position of knowledge. RS was never going to "break" the Union. As we are about to see, the Union is about to break itself. In the US , the unions have just cost the American economy 18,000 jobs by destroying the twinkies firm.... the legacy goes from strength to strength...

Thank you to Maine for a decent debate without calling each other names. It's always good to hear both sides. I may even sleep on what you've said and have different thoughts by tomorrow.

I have enjoyed catching up on what's been said here and very refreshing to see good points being put forward.

The common factor here is that one certain person has not joined in spouting his diatribe of hatred for anyone that has more than fifty quid or filling the page up with unsubstantiated lies and claims.

IronLady2010 wrote:
Thank you to Maine for a decent debate without calling each other names. It's always good to hear both sides. I may even sleep on what you've said and have different thoughts by tomorrow.

Ironlady in this paper it was stated that the Unions & Council had come to agreement on how to restore the pay cuts.
In that agreement was lower severance pay/redundancy pay & lower pensions.
Now the Unions are asking for enhanced severance pay?
Is that not the same as restoring the redundancy pay just after a vote to accept lower payments?
Did not the Unions advise their members to take lower payments?
Did not the council say the Unions were in constant talks with the council on the new budget proposals?
If so they knew what was coming so why accept that deal?
Is Mike Tucker or the Unite convener facing the axe?
Or will they benefit from pay restoration at the cost to their members jobs?
If Maine & Linesman sat back as total outsiders with no political affiliation & looked at the two sets of actions by the once Tory council & the now Labour council they would see & admit to the Tory actions as the best deal for the workers & the city .
But they are die hard Labour/Union supporters & it would be against all they believe to admit the Tory idea was the best.
Unlike many on here I voted UKIP in the Police Commissioner Poll as I wanted some one who had inside knowledge of the Police & how they worked so yes I'm a Tory but I do see when they're right & when they're wrong & say it.
on Pay Cuts it's looking more & more obvious who got it right & it wasn't Mike Tucker who only cared about number one ( as long as I get my pay restored who cares who loses their jobs?) It's glaringly obvious to all the Tories gad had the right approach not the Unions or indeed Labour.
Should have put Tucker on the bonfire then we might have got a convener with a care for his members ?

Cyber__Fug wrote:
I have enjoyed catching up on what's been said here and very refreshing to see good points being put forward.

The common factor here is that one certain person has not joined in spouting his diatribe of hatred for anyone that has more than fifty quid or filling the page up with unsubstantiated lies and claims.

Let me guess who? A close friend of Mike Tucker ? after all they have the same beliefs & TUSC affiliations don't they?
does his real name begin with a P?

loosehead wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:
I have enjoyed catching up on what's been said here and very refreshing to see good points being put forward.

The common factor here is that one certain person has not joined in spouting his diatribe of hatred for anyone that has more than fifty quid or filling the page up with unsubstantiated lies and claims.

Let me guess who? A close friend of Mike Tucker ? after all they have the same beliefs & TUSC affiliations don't they?
does his real name begin with a P?

rearrange the following:

the on nail head have hit you the

Cyber__Fug wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:
I have enjoyed catching up on what's been said here and very refreshing to see good points being put forward.

The common factor here is that one certain person has not joined in spouting his diatribe of hatred for anyone that has more than fifty quid or filling the page up with unsubstantiated lies and claims.

Let me guess who? A close friend of Mike Tucker ? after all they have the same beliefs & TUSC affiliations don't they?
does his real name begin with a P?

rearrange the following:

the on nail head have hit you the

Seems like when one particular poster gets involved the "sensible" debate goes out of the window.
.
I gave up on him weeks ago

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:
I have enjoyed catching up on what's been said here and very refreshing to see good points being put forward.

The common factor here is that one certain person has not joined in spouting his diatribe of hatred for anyone that has more than fifty quid or filling the page up with unsubstantiated lies and claims.

Let me guess who? A close friend of Mike Tucker ? after all they have the same beliefs & TUSC affiliations don't they?
does his real name begin with a P?

rearrange the following:

the on nail head have hit you the

Seems like when one particular poster gets involved the "sensible" debate goes out of the window.
.
I gave up on him weeks ago

well really shows your level of intelligence doesn't it?
he was saying You have hit the nail on the head. so yes when one poster called Lone Ranger gets involved all sensibly debate does go doesn't it Lone Ranger?
How's your mate doing?
So after all your attacks on me & the last Tory council how good does it feel now you have a Great Labour council?
Job Cuts, Cuts in Services the same services Labour Yo & people like you said the Tories were going to make?
they say you should be careful for what you wish for well they're right as I definitely didn't want this chaotic Labour council.
How stupid Tucker looks with his placard exactly whose getting a council tax cut?

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:
I have enjoyed catching up on what's been said here and very refreshing to see good points being put forward.

The common factor here is that one certain person has not joined in spouting his diatribe of hatred for anyone that has more than fifty quid or filling the page up with unsubstantiated lies and claims.

Let me guess who? A close friend of Mike Tucker ? after all they have the same beliefs & TUSC affiliations don't they?
does his real name begin with a P?

rearrange the following:

the on nail head have hit you the

Seems like when one particular poster gets involved the "sensible" debate goes out of the window.
.
I gave up on him weeks ago

well really shows your level of intelligence doesn't it?
he was saying You have hit the nail on the head. so yes when one poster called Lone Ranger gets involved all sensibly debate does go doesn't it Lone Ranger?
How's your mate doing?
So after all your attacks on me & the last Tory council how good does it feel now you have a Great Labour council?
Job Cuts, Cuts in Services the same services Labour Yo & people like you said the Tories were going to make?
they say you should be careful for what you wish for well they're right as I definitely didn't want this chaotic Labour council.
How stupid Tucker looks with his placard exactly whose getting a council tax cut?

IronLady2010 wrote:

Linesman wrote:
It is a case of 'cause and effect'.

The cause was the action taken at Westminster to cut government funding to councils while, at the same time, not allowing them to raise council tax to protect jobs and services.

The effect, in Southampton, was for the Royston Smith to do a 'Maggie Thatcher' and attempt to break the Union, with a disasterous result. Instead of dialogue he attempted dictatorship, which was unacceptable.

All councils suffered the same restrictions, so the question has to be asked, why did it have such a disasterous effect in Southampton, but not in other cities?

The Unions in Southampton say that they may be taking action, but not against the City Council, but against the Government who are the root cause of the problem.

Of course, the Royston Admiration Society will claim that it is all the fault of the Union, but doubt they can explain why Southampton had the problem but other places did not.

Don't be daft! The Unions wouldn't talk to Royston, how many meetings did they walk out of?

The same cuts are being made now, yet the Unions are side by side with Labour, this is my entire point.

Just because Royston is Conservative he was snubbed by the Unions, yet it wasn't Royston who cut the Council budget, it was those above and he had to go with them, with no support from the Unions.

My question is why do the Unions support Labour in the exact position, but yet snub Royston? It doesn't make sense.

I note that you did not explain why, when other local authorities experienced the same cut to their funding, their employees did not take industrial action.

In Southampton's case, the Unions did not snub Royston Smith, Royston Smith did not negotiate, he dictated, which is not acceptable.

Thatcher took the same attitude with the miners, and the same situation resulted.

IronLady2010 wrote:

Linesman wrote:
It is a case of 'cause and effect'.

The cause was the action taken at Westminster to cut government funding to councils while, at the same time, not allowing them to raise council tax to protect jobs and services.

The effect, in Southampton, was for the Royston Smith to do a 'Maggie Thatcher' and attempt to break the Union, with a disasterous result. Instead of dialogue he attempted dictatorship, which was unacceptable.

All councils suffered the same restrictions, so the question has to be asked, why did it have such a disasterous effect in Southampton, but not in other cities?

The Unions in Southampton say that they may be taking action, but not against the City Council, but against the Government who are the root cause of the problem.

Of course, the Royston Admiration Society will claim that it is all the fault of the Union, but doubt they can explain why Southampton had the problem but other places did not.

Don't be daft! The Unions wouldn't talk to Royston, how many meetings did they walk out of?

The same cuts are being made now, yet the Unions are side by side with Labour, this is my entire point.

Just because Royston is Conservative he was snubbed by the Unions, yet it wasn't Royston who cut the Council budget, it was those above and he had to go with them, with no support from the Unions.

My question is why do the Unions support Labour in the exact position, but yet snub Royston? It doesn't make sense.

The Unions would talk to Royston Smith, but Royston Smith would not listen.

He was not prepared to consult, just to tell them what he was going to do, come hell or high water.

That is why the Unions walked out. What's the point of attending for consultations when the other party is not prepared to consult?

Linesman wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Linesman wrote:
It is a case of 'cause and effect'.

The cause was the action taken at Westminster to cut government funding to councils while, at the same time, not allowing them to raise council tax to protect jobs and services.

The effect, in Southampton, was for the Royston Smith to do a 'Maggie Thatcher' and attempt to break the Union, with a disasterous result. Instead of dialogue he attempted dictatorship, which was unacceptable.

All councils suffered the same restrictions, so the question has to be asked, why did it have such a disasterous effect in Southampton, but not in other cities?

The Unions in Southampton say that they may be taking action, but not against the City Council, but against the Government who are the root cause of the problem.

Of course, the Royston Admiration Society will claim that it is all the fault of the Union, but doubt they can explain why Southampton had the problem but other places did not.

Don't be daft! The Unions wouldn't talk to Royston, how many meetings did they walk out of?

The same cuts are being made now, yet the Unions are side by side with Labour, this is my entire point.

Just because Royston is Conservative he was snubbed by the Unions, yet it wasn't Royston who cut the Council budget, it was those above and he had to go with them, with no support from the Unions.

My question is why do the Unions support Labour in the exact position, but yet snub Royston? It doesn't make sense.

I note that you did not explain why, when other local authorities experienced the same cut to their funding, their employees did not take industrial action.

In Southampton's case, the Unions did not snub Royston Smith, Royston Smith did not negotiate, he dictated, which is not acceptable.

Thatcher took the same attitude with the miners, and the same situation resulted.

That was the assumption that many made Linesman but did you see the South Today programme when Sally Taylor had Royston & Andy Straker on ?

She herself had asked them both the same question and it appeared that Straker was one refusing to negotiate and exposed him as an unintelligent militant who had nothing more than a grunt to reply with.

loosehead wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:
I have enjoyed catching up on what's been said here and very refreshing to see good points being put forward.

The common factor here is that one certain person has not joined in spouting his diatribe of hatred for anyone that has more than fifty quid or filling the page up with unsubstantiated lies and claims.

Let me guess who? A close friend of Mike Tucker ? after all they have the same beliefs & TUSC affiliations don't they?
does his real name begin with a P?

rearrange the following:

the on nail head have hit you the

Seems like when one particular poster gets involved the "sensible" debate goes out of the window.
.
I gave up on him weeks ago

well really shows your level of intelligence doesn't it?
he was saying You have hit the nail on the head. so yes when one poster called Lone Ranger gets involved all sensibly debate does go doesn't it Lone Ranger?
How's your mate doing?
So after all your attacks on me & the last Tory council how good does it feel now you have a Great Labour council?
Job Cuts, Cuts in Services the same services Labour Yo & people like you said the Tories were going to make?
they say you should be careful for what you wish for well they're right as I definitely didn't want this chaotic Labour council.
How stupid Tucker looks with his placard exactly whose getting a council tax cut?

It shows YOUR level of intellegence.
.
I know exactly what he posted and read the words.
.
What makes you think i was refering to you anyway

Wasn't Cyberfug replying to my post?
bit of a coincidence if you weren't referring to me isn't it?
Mike Tucker doesn't want a cut in pay so we end up with a year of industrial action & then surprise,surprise a mass meeting(300) of both Unite & Unison ( not very large turn out?) voted not to accept Roystons idea to take pay cuts & won't be buying the Echo anymore so should you be even on this website?

loosehead wrote:
Wasn't Cyberfug replying to my post?
bit of a coincidence if you weren't referring to me isn't it?
Mike Tucker doesn't want a cut in pay so we end up with a year of industrial action & then surprise,surprise a mass meeting(300) of both Unite & Unison ( not very large turn out?) voted not to accept Roystons idea to take pay cuts & won't be buying the Echo anymore so should you be even on this website?

Yes i am happy being on this site.
.
What has Tucker and co not buying copies of the Echo got to do with me ..... Or indeed whats it got to do with you

Blimey, you boys need to get out on a Friday night.

Shoong wrote:
Blimey, you boys need to get out on a Friday night.

Hope you had a great night out.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Wasn't Cyberfug replying to my post?
bit of a coincidence if you weren't referring to me isn't it?
Mike Tucker doesn't want a cut in pay so we end up with a year of industrial action & then surprise,surprise a mass meeting(300) of both Unite & Unison ( not very large turn out?) voted not to accept Roystons idea to take pay cuts & won't be buying the Echo anymore so should you be even on this website?

Yes i am happy being on this site.
.
What has Tucker and co not buying copies of the Echo got to do with me ..... Or indeed whats it got to do with you

So you aren't in either the Unite or Unison union? or if you are are you being a black leg & not obeying your union?
Nothing to do with & not to buy the Biased Echo I think was the Unions agreement wasn't it?

Shoong wrote:
Blimey, you boys need to get out on a Friday night.

Shoong the last Time I had a drink & came on here I kept on being asked if I was drinking again?
I use to drink Sat, Night. Sunday all day but I don't anymore I drink at Christmas & New Years Eve & maybe once every 3-6 months so no sorry I don't go out unless to watch Rugby or my allotment & to shop.
I have come under attack from that idiot & several others for quite some time now,
one cried to Ironlady after calling me a moron I apologised if I'd upset her.
but no matter how much I try to debate with lone Ranger all I get is insults as he's so blinkered to Labour being great he just has to attack anyone who says they're not .
I might be getting rid of Broadband after Christmas to pay for the increase in council tax to pay for Labours C++k Ups! so rest at ease you won't have to put up with this much longer Have a nice week end. Wayne Hobson

loosehead wrote:

Shoong wrote:
Blimey, you boys need to get out on a Friday night.

Shoong the last Time I had a drink & came on here I kept on being asked if I was drinking again?
I use to drink Sat, Night. Sunday all day but I don't anymore I drink at Christmas & New Years Eve & maybe once every 3-6 months so no sorry I don't go out unless to watch Rugby or my allotment & to shop.
I have come under attack from that idiot & several others for quite some time now,
one cried to Ironlady after calling me a moron I apologised if I'd upset her.
but no matter how much I try to debate with lone Ranger all I get is insults as he's so blinkered to Labour being great he just has to attack anyone who says they're not .
I might be getting rid of Broadband after Christmas to pay for the increase in council tax to pay for Labours C++k Ups! so rest at ease you won't have to put up with this much longer Have a nice week end. Wayne Hobson

Don't get rid of broadband, I for one would miss your input on here. Sometimes, we don't always agree on everything, but I always think you have the right to give your opinion and generally you give some great debate. Don't let the odd one or two deter you. Let's face it, someone on here is just obsessed with the SeaCity museum and regardless of the title of the subject, somehow manages to bring it up, much like Southy who always brings in Maggie Thatcher or Mr Bahia with NuLabour and myself with the Unions.

Have a great weekend Wayne!!!! x