Southampton City Council back from the brink?

Daily Echo: Members of Southampton’s Young Carers Project Members of Southampton’s Young Carers Project

SERVICES threatened by the worst-ever cuts could be pulled back from the brink after the council discovered it had more money than it thought.

Libraries, carers of sick parents, older people’s benefits, youth clubs and buses to hospitals were all facing cuts in a bid to save Southampton more than £20m.

But the Daily Echo can reveal city bosses have discovered they were given £5m  more than expected from the Government’s annual funding settlement. 

Finance chief Councillor Simon Letts said about £4m was now available to ease the pain and the rest would be banked in the council’s reserves.

However, opposition politicians called for all of the extra money to be spent on limiting the most painful cuts in Southampton’s history.

And those campaign groups fighting to save their threatened services are urging council bosses to reassess where the cuts are made. Tonight the ruling Labour group will be holding an emergency meeting to decide what services could be saved with the extra cash – just weeks before the final budget is signed off.

Cllr Letts said: “We are better off than expected in a bizarre twist of fate. The extra money will help alleviate some of the proposals that come forward this year.”

Related links

The windfall came about because the council braced itself for the worst case scenario, but in the end the Government was more generous.

More money was also available because the council is set to receive higher than expected business rates.

Cllr Letts said about £4m could be now available to stem the cuts but he said he may bank more than £1m because of uncertain economic times.

News of the extra money was greeted with campaigners fighting to save community services and bus routes.  

Anger has been growing among residents, service users and city organisations as the scale of the cuts became clear. These include scrapping weekly bin services, hiking up council tax by two per cent and abandoning some pensioner benefits.

Some libraries could see their opening times slashed in half – sparking a petition with names including Southampton- born TV naturalist Chris Packham who slammed the cuts as “draconian”.
Ditching bus subsidies will see shift workers, students, pensioners and hospital visitors losing their evening, weekend and bank holiday bus services.

And, controversially, there are plans to axe £7m from services to vulnerable children, which includes shutting a children’s home as well as youth clubs and services, play centres and Sure Start facilities.

Funding could also be slashed to charities and organisations that help those with learning difficulties, special educational needs and disabilities and substance misuse problems. Young carers also face losing support and respite.

Campaigners against youth services cuts are planning a protest outside Southampton Civic Centre on Wednesday, January, 29, from 5pm.

Cllr Letts was tight-lipped about what could be saved until after tonight’s meeting but said that the money offered vital “breathing space” that would allow time to find alternative ways of operating threatened services ahead of next year’s even worse austerity plans.

But opposition parties and councillors say Labour should go back to the drawing board and rethink the cutbacks.

Lifeline for young carers

Daily Echo: Carla-Jayne Bartlett and mum Lisa Eade

FOURTEEN-year-old Carla-Jayne Bartlett is urging council bosses to use the extra cash to save a
service that has become a lifeline to her and 119 other young people in the city.

She believes the Young Carers Project, run by Southampton Voluntary Services, should be at the top of the list of services to be saved as it means so much to so many vulnerable families.

Carla-Jayne, who cares for her disabled mother, said: “I would hope that the council decide to use the money to save the Young Carers Project because so many people have worked hard fighting to save it. It would be a shame for all that work to be wasted.

“It would be a real shame if the service wasn’t saved because it gives people like me the chance to have a break and people who haven’t had the chance to benefit from it never will.

“If it is saved there will be a lot of people who will be very happy. I will jump up and down and cheer.”

Use all the cash to reduce cuts – opposition

OPPOSITION leaders hailed the £5m windfall as an opportunity to bring the council back from the brink and show it “cares” about the people of Southampton.

Leading Conservative John Hannides told the Daily Echo that none of the £5m should be held back from saving threatened services.

He said: “We would have a clear agenda and the full amount would be put to good use in ensuring Southampton residents have got a council that will stand up for them and the key services they use.”

Cllr Hannides said the council should take advantage of the Government grant to help with the
introduction of council tax benefit.

He added: “If the council puts up £900,000, which it has so far refused to do, the Government will hand over £300,000 and that would bring in £1.2m that can be used to support Southampton residents on low incomes.”

Former council leader Royston Smith added: “There is absolutely no reason why hard working
families in Southampton should have their council tax increased.

“The Conservatives froze council tax for the last two years while we were running the council
and we would do it again of we were still in.

“Labour can also afford to reverse their pernicious attack on pensioners and special constables and keep the council tax discounts that those people need and deserve.

“In just a few short months Labour has reverted to type – taxing unneccessarily and spending wastefully.”

Councillor Adrian Vinson, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said: “I understand the situation
is not quite as bad as first feared but it’s still the worst the council has ever faced. I just hope that the administration’s revised budget will include significant changes from the draft.

‘’We’ll be putting forward our own proposals on budget day and the emphasis will be on protecting the most vulnerable people in our city.”

Comments (77)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:28am Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

Roll on next year in May when theres going to be a back lash against the Labour Council
Roll on next year in May when theres going to be a back lash against the Labour Council southy

11:33am Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

So if our Labour Council is saying they do not want to make cuts, why have they not link up with all the other Councillors against cuts.
Remember what you said to us at a TUSC meeting Councillor Letts.
So if our Labour Council is saying they do not want to make cuts, why have they not link up with all the other Councillors against cuts. Remember what you said to us at a TUSC meeting Councillor Letts. southy

11:44am Mon 14 Jan 13

Linesman says...

southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount. Linesman

11:46am Mon 14 Jan 13

bazzeroz says...

Have to look down the back of my settee and see what I can find! 5 million quid they didn't know they had! Spend it wisely because we are watching.
Have to look down the back of my settee and see what I can find! 5 million quid they didn't know they had! Spend it wisely because we are watching. bazzeroz

11:53am Mon 14 Jan 13

lordswood lady says...

Am I missing the point here? Central Government gave Southampton City Council more money than expected, for the express purpose of running City services. If that's the case why is Simon Letts talking about putting £1 million of it into reserves? If this Council's finances are in dire straits, as is frequently claimed, then the whole of the £5 million should be spent on avoiding cuts to essential services, not just put into the Council's piggy bank against future contingencies.
Am I missing the point here? Central Government gave Southampton City Council more money than expected, for the express purpose of running City services. If that's the case why is Simon Letts talking about putting £1 million of it into reserves? If this Council's finances are in dire straits, as is frequently claimed, then the whole of the £5 million should be spent on avoiding cuts to essential services, not just put into the Council's piggy bank against future contingencies. lordswood lady

11:55am Mon 14 Jan 13

james47 says...

Labour = Liars

http://southamptonla
bour.files.wordpress
.com/2012/04/printer
-friendly-manifesto.
pdf

http://southamptonla
bour.wordpress.com/6
75-2/710-2/
Labour = Liars http://southamptonla bour.files.wordpress .com/2012/04/printer -friendly-manifesto. pdf http://southamptonla bour.wordpress.com/6 75-2/710-2/ james47

12:17pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution. freefinker

12:38pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people" southy

12:40pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows. southy

12:42pm Mon 14 Jan 13

st1halo says...

Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very common sense! But what we really need to look at is the fact that, when it comes to the council... for too long we have been paying for steak and getting sausages!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very common sense! But what we really need to look at is the fact that, when it comes to the council... for too long we have been paying for steak and getting sausages! st1halo

12:43pm Mon 14 Jan 13

loosehead says...

The Tory council left this lot a healthy emergency fund.
They say they got more than expected?
Yes they did as they also got £8million thanks to a grant applied for by the Tories which Labour increased & were given by the Government plus this extra £5million.
so in total they are £13million better off than the Tories had budgeted for & also they're seeing an increase in business rates revenue so why is it that the party Labour accused of going to cut services which had no plans to do so with less money than Labour have got?
Why if they didn't know what the budget for this year & next was did they restore pay?
the money spent doing this would now have meant no cuts in services which is exactly what the Tories said when they implemented pay cuts?
I'm getting a rise in my council tax yet if it wasn't for the grant I woul;d be getting less for more money & some idiots want council tax to rtise more?
Don't they remember what happened in Liverpool where the council just hammered the tax payers or what happened here under Bridles Labour council that just kept on increasing council tax to give her & her colleagues more wages?
The Tory council left this lot a healthy emergency fund. They say they got more than expected? Yes they did as they also got £8million thanks to a grant applied for by the Tories which Labour increased & were given by the Government plus this extra £5million. so in total they are £13million better off than the Tories had budgeted for & also they're seeing an increase in business rates revenue so why is it that the party Labour accused of going to cut services which had no plans to do so with less money than Labour have got? Why if they didn't know what the budget for this year & next was did they restore pay? the money spent doing this would now have meant no cuts in services which is exactly what the Tories said when they implemented pay cuts? I'm getting a rise in my council tax yet if it wasn't for the grant I woul;d be getting less for more money & some idiots want council tax to rtise more? Don't they remember what happened in Liverpool where the council just hammered the tax payers or what happened here under Bridles Labour council that just kept on increasing council tax to give her & her colleagues more wages? loosehead

12:50pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy. freefinker

1:02pm Mon 14 Jan 13

peachy1 says...

Why have they decided to give only 4M and not the full 5 M they didn't have it yesterday but today we decide to take 1m on prudent reserve grounds

Why not take the money off of the Itchen bridge you've been scamming us there for too long absaloutely disgrace
Why have they decided to give only 4M and not the full 5 M they didn't have it yesterday but today we decide to take 1m on prudent reserve grounds Why not take the money off of the Itchen bridge you've been scamming us there for too long absaloutely disgrace peachy1

1:14pm Mon 14 Jan 13

good-gosh says...

Unaccounted £5m is beyond belief.
Unaccounted £5m is beyond belief. good-gosh

1:19pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Linesman says...

st1halo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very common sense! But what we really need to look at is the fact that, when it comes to the council... for too long we have been paying for steak and getting sausages!
Agreed! The savings made have paid for a nice big 'white elephant' museum, situated in the wrong place.
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very common sense! But what we really need to look at is the fact that, when it comes to the council... for too long we have been paying for steak and getting sausages![/p][/quote]Agreed! The savings made have paid for a nice big 'white elephant' museum, situated in the wrong place. Linesman

1:22pm Mon 14 Jan 13

WOOLSTONCHAP says...

Might want to get someone that can do simple maths !!!!!! could not run a bath let alone a council useless IDIOTS the lot of them !!!!!!
Might want to get someone that can do simple maths !!!!!! could not run a bath let alone a council useless IDIOTS the lot of them !!!!!! WOOLSTONCHAP

1:30pm Mon 14 Jan 13

good-gosh says...

WOOLSTONCHAP wrote:
Might want to get someone that can do simple maths !!!!!! could not run a bath let alone a council useless IDIOTS the lot of them !!!!!!
I've got a pad of paper printed with 5mm squares and they can have a sheet if it helps.
[quote][p][bold]WOOLSTONCHAP[/bold] wrote: Might want to get someone that can do simple maths !!!!!! could not run a bath let alone a council useless IDIOTS the lot of them !!!!!![/p][/quote]I've got a pad of paper printed with 5mm squares and they can have a sheet if it helps. good-gosh

1:31pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
The Tory council left this lot a healthy emergency fund.
They say they got more than expected?
Yes they did as they also got £8million thanks to a grant applied for by the Tories which Labour increased & were given by the Government plus this extra £5million.
so in total they are £13million better off than the Tories had budgeted for & also they're seeing an increase in business rates revenue so why is it that the party Labour accused of going to cut services which had no plans to do so with less money than Labour have got?
Why if they didn't know what the budget for this year & next was did they restore pay?
the money spent doing this would now have meant no cuts in services which is exactly what the Tories said when they implemented pay cuts?
I'm getting a rise in my council tax yet if it wasn't for the grant I woul;d be getting less for more money & some idiots want council tax to rtise more?
Don't they remember what happened in Liverpool where the council just hammered the tax payers or what happened here under Bridles Labour council that just kept on increasing council tax to give her & her colleagues more wages?
They also left a morgage on the 'White Elephant' museum that has to be paid.

With regard increasing council tax, if you want to maintain the services, then it means either raising council tax or receiving a larger grant from the government.

The city council's hands are tied. The Tory-led government have cut their grant, and have also prevented them from increasing the council tax.

By the same token, the government have done sweet FA to keep costs down eg fuel prices, which has increased the cost of collecting rubbish.

Royston Smith&Co wanted to cut council workers' wages, with no thought for the fact that their wages had already been on hold, but the cost of living had been rising.

I seem to recall that there had been no suggestion that city councillors should take a cut at the same time, but if I am wrong on that one, I am sure that you will leap to the defence of your beloved leader.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: The Tory council left this lot a healthy emergency fund. They say they got more than expected? Yes they did as they also got £8million thanks to a grant applied for by the Tories which Labour increased & were given by the Government plus this extra £5million. so in total they are £13million better off than the Tories had budgeted for & also they're seeing an increase in business rates revenue so why is it that the party Labour accused of going to cut services which had no plans to do so with less money than Labour have got? Why if they didn't know what the budget for this year & next was did they restore pay? the money spent doing this would now have meant no cuts in services which is exactly what the Tories said when they implemented pay cuts? I'm getting a rise in my council tax yet if it wasn't for the grant I woul;d be getting less for more money & some idiots want council tax to rtise more? Don't they remember what happened in Liverpool where the council just hammered the tax payers or what happened here under Bridles Labour council that just kept on increasing council tax to give her & her colleagues more wages?[/p][/quote]They also left a morgage on the 'White Elephant' museum that has to be paid. With regard increasing council tax, if you want to maintain the services, then it means either raising council tax or receiving a larger grant from the government. The city council's hands are tied. The Tory-led government have cut their grant, and have also prevented them from increasing the council tax. By the same token, the government have done sweet FA to keep costs down eg fuel prices, which has increased the cost of collecting rubbish. Royston Smith&Co wanted to cut council workers' wages, with no thought for the fact that their wages had already been on hold, but the cost of living had been rising. I seem to recall that there had been no suggestion that city councillors should take a cut at the same time, but if I am wrong on that one, I am sure that you will leap to the defence of your beloved leader. Linesman

1:40pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Linesman says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"
How do you propose that this fight is taken to the National Government - a government that has been elected as a result of a democratic process?

Should they march on the Treasury, break down the doors and dish out ingots of gold?

Alternatively, they could publish a manifesto, stating their aims and revealing how they would deal with the current financial crisis.

If it made economic sense, and the majority of the electorate were convinced that it was what the country needed, then they would be elected to put their theories into practice.

One big draw-back. They would find that, although this country is an island, it cannot live independenly of other countries, and we would need to trade with them.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"[/p][/quote]How do you propose that this fight is taken to the National Government - a government that has been elected as a result of a democratic process? Should they march on the Treasury, break down the doors and dish out ingots of gold? Alternatively, they could publish a manifesto, stating their aims and revealing how they would deal with the current financial crisis. If it made economic sense, and the majority of the electorate were convinced that it was what the country needed, then they would be elected to put their theories into practice. One big draw-back. They would find that, although this country is an island, it cannot live independenly of other countries, and we would need to trade with them. Linesman

1:52pm Mon 14 Jan 13

lisa whitemore says...

james47 wrote:
Labour = Liars

http://southamptonla

bour.files.wordpress

.com/2012/04/printer

-friendly-manifesto.

pdf

http://southamptonla

bour.wordpress.com/6

75-2/710-2/
Totally Agree. Well Said!
[quote][p][bold]james47[/bold] wrote: Labour = Liars http://southamptonla bour.files.wordpress .com/2012/04/printer -friendly-manifesto. pdf http://southamptonla bour.wordpress.com/6 75-2/710-2/[/p][/quote]Totally Agree. Well Said! lisa whitemore

1:56pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy. southy

1:56pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"
Simply voting against cuts does not show leadership. Now, if there was a credible, fully-funded alternative, wouldn't voters look at it with interest? So what is the alternative? Maybe start with explaining a "needs budget", what it is, how the community's needs are assessed and agreed and how the case would be made to government to make up the shortfall. People want to hear the detail.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"[/p][/quote]Simply voting against cuts does not show leadership. Now, if there was a credible, fully-funded alternative, wouldn't voters look at it with interest? So what is the alternative? Maybe start with explaining a "needs budget", what it is, how the community's needs are assessed and agreed and how the case would be made to government to make up the shortfall. People want to hear the detail. Stephen J

1:58pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"
How do you propose that this fight is taken to the National Government - a government that has been elected as a result of a democratic process?

Should they march on the Treasury, break down the doors and dish out ingots of gold?

Alternatively, they could publish a manifesto, stating their aims and revealing how they would deal with the current financial crisis.

If it made economic sense, and the majority of the electorate were convinced that it was what the country needed, then they would be elected to put their theories into practice.

One big draw-back. They would find that, although this country is an island, it cannot live independenly of other countries, and we would need to trade with them.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"[/p][/quote]How do you propose that this fight is taken to the National Government - a government that has been elected as a result of a democratic process? Should they march on the Treasury, break down the doors and dish out ingots of gold? Alternatively, they could publish a manifesto, stating their aims and revealing how they would deal with the current financial crisis. If it made economic sense, and the majority of the electorate were convinced that it was what the country needed, then they would be elected to put their theories into practice. One big draw-back. They would find that, although this country is an island, it cannot live independenly of other countries, and we would need to trade with them.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy. southy

2:00pm Mon 14 Jan 13

lisa whitemore says...

peachy1 wrote:
Why have they decided to give only 4M and not the full 5 M they didn't have it yesterday but today we decide to take 1m on prudent reserve grounds

Why not take the money off of the Itchen bridge you've been scamming us there for too long absaloutely disgrace
because they used money from emergancy funds to bail itchen bridge and scc advertising on bus shelters!
[quote][p][bold]peachy1[/bold] wrote: Why have they decided to give only 4M and not the full 5 M they didn't have it yesterday but today we decide to take 1m on prudent reserve grounds Why not take the money off of the Itchen bridge you've been scamming us there for too long absaloutely disgrace[/p][/quote]because they used money from emergancy funds to bail itchen bridge and scc advertising on bus shelters! lisa whitemore

2:02pm Mon 14 Jan 13

good-gosh says...

How many accountants do labour councils like employing? None, because accountants use too much red ink.
How many accountants do labour councils like employing? None, because accountants use too much red ink. good-gosh

2:08pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

good-gosh wrote:
Unaccounted £5m is beyond belief.
Hardly unaccounted for,,,the Government released budgets spend 2013/14 for council's on 24-12-12 so every council in the country wouldn't know their budget until after the Christmas break, 10 days after returning to work SCC have made announcement to the Echo.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: Unaccounted £5m is beyond belief.[/p][/quote]Hardly unaccounted for,,,the Government released budgets spend 2013/14 for council's on 24-12-12 so every council in the country wouldn't know their budget until after the Christmas break, 10 days after returning to work SCC have made announcement to the Echo. Outside of the Box

2:09pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"
Simply voting against cuts does not show leadership. Now, if there was a credible, fully-funded alternative, wouldn't voters look at it with interest? So what is the alternative? Maybe start with explaining a "needs budget", what it is, how the community's needs are assessed and agreed and how the case would be made to government to make up the shortfall. People want to hear the detail.
There is an alternative and I know it have been put infront of the Council a number of times in the Council chambers both Tory and Labour controlled council, but both would not even look at it, in sted of saying and doing going away and looking and thinking about the alternative they voted it down and voted in cuts right away with out even thinking about any alternative.
The way to gain is do a Liverpool on them, even lo you lose your seats you would be doing the right thing for the people, Liverpool beat the Thatcher Government in the end even lo the councillors lost there seats and was not allowed to stand again for 5 years, they had won the Thatcher Government gave Liverpool an extra £56 million, it was just a shame that no other councils done the same thing, it would of force change in government.
This is what happens when people start to think the right way and that way is "People should not fear its Government, But Government should fear its people".
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"[/p][/quote]Simply voting against cuts does not show leadership. Now, if there was a credible, fully-funded alternative, wouldn't voters look at it with interest? So what is the alternative? Maybe start with explaining a "needs budget", what it is, how the community's needs are assessed and agreed and how the case would be made to government to make up the shortfall. People want to hear the detail.[/p][/quote]There is an alternative and I know it have been put infront of the Council a number of times in the Council chambers both Tory and Labour controlled council, but both would not even look at it, in sted of saying and doing going away and looking and thinking about the alternative they voted it down and voted in cuts right away with out even thinking about any alternative. The way to gain is do a Liverpool on them, even lo you lose your seats you would be doing the right thing for the people, Liverpool beat the Thatcher Government in the end even lo the councillors lost there seats and was not allowed to stand again for 5 years, they had won the Thatcher Government gave Liverpool an extra £56 million, it was just a shame that no other councils done the same thing, it would of force change in government. This is what happens when people start to think the right way and that way is "People should not fear its Government, But Government should fear its people". southy

2:10pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in? freefinker

2:10pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

Linesman wrote:
st1halo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very common sense! But what we really need to look at is the fact that, when it comes to the council... for too long we have been paying for steak and getting sausages!
Agreed! The savings made have paid for a nice big 'white elephant' museum, situated in the wrong place.
Paying for steak and getting sausages,,,,how borrowing for steak (Sea City) and one big sausage (Sea City) as the last administration did.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very common sense! But what we really need to look at is the fact that, when it comes to the council... for too long we have been paying for steak and getting sausages![/p][/quote]Agreed! The savings made have paid for a nice big 'white elephant' museum, situated in the wrong place.[/p][/quote]Paying for steak and getting sausages,,,,how borrowing for steak (Sea City) and one big sausage (Sea City) as the last administration did. Outside of the Box

2:10pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Unaccounted £5m is beyond belief.
Hardly unaccounted for,,,the Government released budgets spend 2013/14 for council's on 24-12-12 so every council in the country wouldn't know their budget until after the Christmas break, 10 days after returning to work SCC have made announcement to the Echo.
24th Dec was when they knew
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: Unaccounted £5m is beyond belief.[/p][/quote]Hardly unaccounted for,,,the Government released budgets spend 2013/14 for council's on 24-12-12 so every council in the country wouldn't know their budget until after the Christmas break, 10 days after returning to work SCC have made announcement to the Echo.[/p][/quote]24th Dec was when they knew southy

2:13pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

good-gosh wrote:
How many accountants do labour councils like employing? None, because accountants use too much red ink.
None because the Tories did a 10 year deal with a private company called Capitia to deal with accounts, legal, HR, and nearly every other administration role within the council,,,,which cost us a fortune.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: How many accountants do labour councils like employing? None, because accountants use too much red ink.[/p][/quote]None because the Tories did a 10 year deal with a private company called Capitia to deal with accounts, legal, HR, and nearly every other administration role within the council,,,,which cost us a fortune. Outside of the Box

2:16pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office. southy

2:18pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Unaccounted £5m is beyond belief.
Hardly unaccounted for,,,the Government released budgets spend 2013/14 for council's on 24-12-12 so every council in the country wouldn't know their budget until after the Christmas break, 10 days after returning to work SCC have made announcement to the Echo.
24th Dec was when they knew
I know that's exactly what I said,,,,,Eric Pickles tried to bury the announcement by informing council's of the budgets on 24-12-12 or if you like 24th Dec or even Christmas Eve.

Please read what I said before trying to correct me and making yourself look stupid in the process
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: Unaccounted £5m is beyond belief.[/p][/quote]Hardly unaccounted for,,,the Government released budgets spend 2013/14 for council's on 24-12-12 so every council in the country wouldn't know their budget until after the Christmas break, 10 days after returning to work SCC have made announcement to the Echo.[/p][/quote]24th Dec was when they knew[/p][/quote]I know that's exactly what I said,,,,,Eric Pickles tried to bury the announcement by informing council's of the budgets on 24-12-12 or if you like 24th Dec or even Christmas Eve. Please read what I said before trying to correct me and making yourself look stupid in the process Outside of the Box

2:19pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"
Simply voting against cuts does not show leadership. Now, if there was a credible, fully-funded alternative, wouldn't voters look at it with interest? So what is the alternative? Maybe start with explaining a "needs budget", what it is, how the community's needs are assessed and agreed and how the case would be made to government to make up the shortfall. People want to hear the detail.
There is an alternative and I know it have been put infront of the Council a number of times in the Council chambers both Tory and Labour controlled council, but both would not even look at it, in sted of saying and doing going away and looking and thinking about the alternative they voted it down and voted in cuts right away with out even thinking about any alternative.
The way to gain is do a Liverpool on them, even lo you lose your seats you would be doing the right thing for the people, Liverpool beat the Thatcher Government in the end even lo the councillors lost there seats and was not allowed to stand again for 5 years, they had won the Thatcher Government gave Liverpool an extra £56 million, it was just a shame that no other councils done the same thing, it would of force change in government.
This is what happens when people start to think the right way and that way is "People should not fear its Government, But Government should fear its people".
So, there is an alternative and you've seen it put in front of the council. But what is it?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]Lines what you do is that you do not wait, you lead and take the fight to the national government and fight for more, there are councillors up and down the country who have refuse to vote for the cuts against the main Labour Party wishes and want to fight the government over cuts, this Labour Council do not have the ability to lead, mind you they are a bunch of Capitalist and team players "do as you are told and do not do what is right for the people"[/p][/quote]Simply voting against cuts does not show leadership. Now, if there was a credible, fully-funded alternative, wouldn't voters look at it with interest? So what is the alternative? Maybe start with explaining a "needs budget", what it is, how the community's needs are assessed and agreed and how the case would be made to government to make up the shortfall. People want to hear the detail.[/p][/quote]There is an alternative and I know it have been put infront of the Council a number of times in the Council chambers both Tory and Labour controlled council, but both would not even look at it, in sted of saying and doing going away and looking and thinking about the alternative they voted it down and voted in cuts right away with out even thinking about any alternative. The way to gain is do a Liverpool on them, even lo you lose your seats you would be doing the right thing for the people, Liverpool beat the Thatcher Government in the end even lo the councillors lost there seats and was not allowed to stand again for 5 years, they had won the Thatcher Government gave Liverpool an extra £56 million, it was just a shame that no other councils done the same thing, it would of force change in government. This is what happens when people start to think the right way and that way is "People should not fear its Government, But Government should fear its people".[/p][/quote]So, there is an alternative and you've seen it put in front of the council. But what is it? Stephen J

2:29pm Mon 14 Jan 13

stay local says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
So Southy you see yourself as a leader? Which one Dear Leader, Supreme Leader, Il Duce. I think you have had too much sun if you think for one moment that A you are electable and B you have leadership qualities. Anyone who looks back over your dross, lies, falsehoods, misdirection, continuous inability to acknowledge error, failure to provide sources for your spurious facts, would quickly realise you cannot be trusted with anything more than a flat AA battery!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote]So Southy you see yourself as a leader? Which one Dear Leader, Supreme Leader, Il Duce. I think you have had too much sun if you think for one moment that A you are electable and B you have leadership qualities. Anyone who looks back over your dross, lies, falsehoods, misdirection, continuous inability to acknowledge error, failure to provide sources for your spurious facts, would quickly realise you cannot be trusted with anything more than a flat AA battery! stay local

2:30pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
.. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change.

That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum.

Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change. That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum. Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories. freefinker

2:38pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

When the Nazis came for the Communists.
I remained silent, I was not a Communist.

When they locked up the Socialist Democrats.
I did not speak out, I was not a Socialist Democrat.

When they came for the Trade Unionist.
I did not speak out, I was not a Trade Unionist

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Words by Martin Niemoller a theologian pastor.

Very wise words, and 1 to think about.
the slow creeping effect to do things so there is no revolt against what they are doing, what happen then is happing now in the last 32 years, the slow creeping effect to take what is right away for from you, and to force thier way on you.
When the Nazis came for the Communists. I remained silent, I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Socialist Democrats. I did not speak out, I was not a Socialist Democrat. When they came for the Trade Unionist. I did not speak out, I was not a Trade Unionist When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Words by Martin Niemoller a theologian pastor. Very wise words, and 1 to think about. the slow creeping effect to do things so there is no revolt against what they are doing, what happen then is happing now in the last 32 years, the slow creeping effect to take what is right away for from you, and to force thier way on you. southy

2:39pm Mon 14 Jan 13

jazzy54zz says...

Its a shame that so many replies have to get political, some harking back 20+ years..............h
owever lets just hope that ALL £5 million is used to soften these cruel cuts and keep people in employment.

As for putting some aside, I can remember when the Icelandic bank went bust and nearly every council around the country was panicking that they would lose their (our) money as some had hundreds of millions 'put aside', surely any money collected in council tax should be used to safeguard services and jobs, there is a never ending supply of council tax money anyway.
Its a shame that so many replies have to get political, some harking back 20+ years..............h owever lets just hope that ALL £5 million is used to soften these cruel cuts and keep people in employment. As for putting some aside, I can remember when the Icelandic bank went bust and nearly every council around the country was panicking that they would lose their (our) money as some had hundreds of millions 'put aside', surely any money collected in council tax should be used to safeguard services and jobs, there is a never ending supply of council tax money anyway. jazzy54zz

2:48pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
When the Nazis came for the Communists.
I remained silent, I was not a Communist.

When they locked up the Socialist Democrats.
I did not speak out, I was not a Socialist Democrat.

When they came for the Trade Unionist.
I did not speak out, I was not a Trade Unionist

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Words by Martin Niemoller a theologian pastor.

Very wise words, and 1 to think about.
the slow creeping effect to do things so there is no revolt against what they are doing, what happen then is happing now in the last 32 years, the slow creeping effect to take what is right away for from you, and to force thier way on you.
.. oh do grow up and stop comparing our rather benign, elected and democratic political parties to the Nazis.

We have more to fear form you as Trotskyists are not democrats and if you ever obtained power would impose a tyrannical dictatorship.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: When the Nazis came for the Communists. I remained silent, I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Socialist Democrats. I did not speak out, I was not a Socialist Democrat. When they came for the Trade Unionist. I did not speak out, I was not a Trade Unionist When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Words by Martin Niemoller a theologian pastor. Very wise words, and 1 to think about. the slow creeping effect to do things so there is no revolt against what they are doing, what happen then is happing now in the last 32 years, the slow creeping effect to take what is right away for from you, and to force thier way on you.[/p][/quote].. oh do grow up and stop comparing our rather benign, elected and democratic political parties to the Nazis. We have more to fear form you as Trotskyists are not democrats and if you ever obtained power would impose a tyrannical dictatorship. freefinker

2:55pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
.. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change.

That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum.

Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.
and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network.
Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change. That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum. Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.[/p][/quote]and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network. Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election. southy

3:06pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
When the Nazis came for the Communists.
I remained silent, I was not a Communist.

When they locked up the Socialist Democrats.
I did not speak out, I was not a Socialist Democrat.

When they came for the Trade Unionist.
I did not speak out, I was not a Trade Unionist

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Words by Martin Niemoller a theologian pastor.

Very wise words, and 1 to think about.
the slow creeping effect to do things so there is no revolt against what they are doing, what happen then is happing now in the last 32 years, the slow creeping effect to take what is right away for from you, and to force thier way on you.
.. oh do grow up and stop comparing our rather benign, elected and democratic political parties to the Nazis.

We have more to fear form you as Trotskyists are not democrats and if you ever obtained power would impose a tyrannical dictatorship.
read the words and under stand them, it not just aimed at the Nazis, its appling to people rights and how they are removed slowly bit by bit.
And thats where you are totally wrong yet again Trotskyists are very democrats they are more democrated than the any Capitalist, lean and read your history did the Socialist have the Capitalist removed from Government when ever they have gained power, the answer is no, never have done all ways allowed them to remain where ever they where elected to do so, Socialism is not about dictatorship thats more in the way of Capitalist thinking so thing that they have shown right the way though history.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: When the Nazis came for the Communists. I remained silent, I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Socialist Democrats. I did not speak out, I was not a Socialist Democrat. When they came for the Trade Unionist. I did not speak out, I was not a Trade Unionist When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Words by Martin Niemoller a theologian pastor. Very wise words, and 1 to think about. the slow creeping effect to do things so there is no revolt against what they are doing, what happen then is happing now in the last 32 years, the slow creeping effect to take what is right away for from you, and to force thier way on you.[/p][/quote].. oh do grow up and stop comparing our rather benign, elected and democratic political parties to the Nazis. We have more to fear form you as Trotskyists are not democrats and if you ever obtained power would impose a tyrannical dictatorship.[/p][/quote]read the words and under stand them, it not just aimed at the Nazis, its appling to people rights and how they are removed slowly bit by bit. And thats where you are totally wrong yet again Trotskyists are very democrats they are more democrated than the any Capitalist, lean and read your history did the Socialist have the Capitalist removed from Government when ever they have gained power, the answer is no, never have done all ways allowed them to remain where ever they where elected to do so, Socialism is not about dictatorship thats more in the way of Capitalist thinking so thing that they have shown right the way though history. southy

3:13pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
.. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change.

That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum.

Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.
and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network.
Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.
.. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy?

Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage.

The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary.

Your command of history is atrocious.

The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change. That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum. Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.[/p][/quote]and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network. Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.[/p][/quote].. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy? Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage. The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary. Your command of history is atrocious. The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda. freefinker

3:19pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
When the Nazis came for the Communists.
I remained silent, I was not a Communist.

When they locked up the Socialist Democrats.
I did not speak out, I was not a Socialist Democrat.

When they came for the Trade Unionist.
I did not speak out, I was not a Trade Unionist

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Words by Martin Niemoller a theologian pastor.

Very wise words, and 1 to think about.
the slow creeping effect to do things so there is no revolt against what they are doing, what happen then is happing now in the last 32 years, the slow creeping effect to take what is right away for from you, and to force thier way on you.
.. oh do grow up and stop comparing our rather benign, elected and democratic political parties to the Nazis.

We have more to fear form you as Trotskyists are not democrats and if you ever obtained power would impose a tyrannical dictatorship.
read the words and under stand them, it not just aimed at the Nazis, its appling to people rights and how they are removed slowly bit by bit.
And thats where you are totally wrong yet again Trotskyists are very democrats they are more democrated than the any Capitalist, lean and read your history did the Socialist have the Capitalist removed from Government when ever they have gained power, the answer is no, never have done all ways allowed them to remain where ever they where elected to do so, Socialism is not about dictatorship thats more in the way of Capitalist thinking so thing that they have shown right the way though history.
.. funny that. Weren't you telling us only a few days ago that 'true socialists' have never been in power anywhere, at any time? Make up your mind, will you.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: When the Nazis came for the Communists. I remained silent, I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Socialist Democrats. I did not speak out, I was not a Socialist Democrat. When they came for the Trade Unionist. I did not speak out, I was not a Trade Unionist When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Words by Martin Niemoller a theologian pastor. Very wise words, and 1 to think about. the slow creeping effect to do things so there is no revolt against what they are doing, what happen then is happing now in the last 32 years, the slow creeping effect to take what is right away for from you, and to force thier way on you.[/p][/quote].. oh do grow up and stop comparing our rather benign, elected and democratic political parties to the Nazis. We have more to fear form you as Trotskyists are not democrats and if you ever obtained power would impose a tyrannical dictatorship.[/p][/quote]read the words and under stand them, it not just aimed at the Nazis, its appling to people rights and how they are removed slowly bit by bit. And thats where you are totally wrong yet again Trotskyists are very democrats they are more democrated than the any Capitalist, lean and read your history did the Socialist have the Capitalist removed from Government when ever they have gained power, the answer is no, never have done all ways allowed them to remain where ever they where elected to do so, Socialism is not about dictatorship thats more in the way of Capitalist thinking so thing that they have shown right the way though history.[/p][/quote].. funny that. Weren't you telling us only a few days ago that 'true socialists' have never been in power anywhere, at any time? Make up your mind, will you. freefinker

3:34pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
.. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change.

That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum.

Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.
and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network.
Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.
.. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy?

Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage.

The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary.

Your command of history is atrocious.

The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.
Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round.
minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change. That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum. Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.[/p][/quote]and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network. Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.[/p][/quote].. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy? Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage. The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary. Your command of history is atrocious. The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.[/p][/quote]Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round. minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you. southy

3:44pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
When the Nazis came for the Communists.
I remained silent, I was not a Communist.

When they locked up the Socialist Democrats.
I did not speak out, I was not a Socialist Democrat.

When they came for the Trade Unionist.
I did not speak out, I was not a Trade Unionist

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Words by Martin Niemoller a theologian pastor.

Very wise words, and 1 to think about.
the slow creeping effect to do things so there is no revolt against what they are doing, what happen then is happing now in the last 32 years, the slow creeping effect to take what is right away for from you, and to force thier way on you.
.. oh do grow up and stop comparing our rather benign, elected and democratic political parties to the Nazis.

We have more to fear form you as Trotskyists are not democrats and if you ever obtained power would impose a tyrannical dictatorship.
read the words and under stand them, it not just aimed at the Nazis, its appling to people rights and how they are removed slowly bit by bit.
And thats where you are totally wrong yet again Trotskyists are very democrats they are more democrated than the any Capitalist, lean and read your history did the Socialist have the Capitalist removed from Government when ever they have gained power, the answer is no, never have done all ways allowed them to remain where ever they where elected to do so, Socialism is not about dictatorship thats more in the way of Capitalist thinking so thing that they have shown right the way though history.
.. funny that. Weren't you telling us only a few days ago that 'true socialists' have never been in power anywhere, at any time? Make up your mind, will you.
I was thinking about Russia between 1917 (after the October Revolution where only 1 person got killed and 3 wounded) to 1923, Lenin a Socialist Communist did not remove the Capitalist not even Starlin Provincialist Capitalist Republicans from taking part in Russia new Government, but what happened when the Capitalist retook power in the Russian government in 1923 they went after all the leaders of the Socialist and the Union leaders, they even went to other countrys to have them murdered, Stalin sent a people to USA and then to Mexico to have Trotsky murdered, the nature of Capialism is to do things like this.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: When the Nazis came for the Communists. I remained silent, I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Socialist Democrats. I did not speak out, I was not a Socialist Democrat. When they came for the Trade Unionist. I did not speak out, I was not a Trade Unionist When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Words by Martin Niemoller a theologian pastor. Very wise words, and 1 to think about. the slow creeping effect to do things so there is no revolt against what they are doing, what happen then is happing now in the last 32 years, the slow creeping effect to take what is right away for from you, and to force thier way on you.[/p][/quote].. oh do grow up and stop comparing our rather benign, elected and democratic political parties to the Nazis. We have more to fear form you as Trotskyists are not democrats and if you ever obtained power would impose a tyrannical dictatorship.[/p][/quote]read the words and under stand them, it not just aimed at the Nazis, its appling to people rights and how they are removed slowly bit by bit. And thats where you are totally wrong yet again Trotskyists are very democrats they are more democrated than the any Capitalist, lean and read your history did the Socialist have the Capitalist removed from Government when ever they have gained power, the answer is no, never have done all ways allowed them to remain where ever they where elected to do so, Socialism is not about dictatorship thats more in the way of Capitalist thinking so thing that they have shown right the way though history.[/p][/quote].. funny that. Weren't you telling us only a few days ago that 'true socialists' have never been in power anywhere, at any time? Make up your mind, will you.[/p][/quote]I was thinking about Russia between 1917 (after the October Revolution where only 1 person got killed and 3 wounded) to 1923, Lenin a Socialist Communist did not remove the Capitalist not even Starlin Provincialist Capitalist Republicans from taking part in Russia new Government, but what happened when the Capitalist retook power in the Russian government in 1923 they went after all the leaders of the Socialist and the Union leaders, they even went to other countrys to have them murdered, Stalin sent a people to USA and then to Mexico to have Trotsky murdered, the nature of Capialism is to do things like this. southy

3:45pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
.. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change.

That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum.

Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.
and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network.
Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.
.. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy?

Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage.

The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary.

Your command of history is atrocious.

The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.
Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round.
minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.
1) The second ballot was between Major, Heseltine and Hurd. Thatcher had withdrawn. 2) There were two ballots not three. 3) The 'night of the long knives' was in 1962 when MacMillan sacked seven of his cabinet.

Now, about this "needs budget".
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change. That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum. Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.[/p][/quote]and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network. Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.[/p][/quote].. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy? Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage. The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary. Your command of history is atrocious. The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.[/p][/quote]Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round. minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.[/p][/quote]1) The second ballot was between Major, Heseltine and Hurd. Thatcher had withdrawn. 2) There were two ballots not three. 3) The 'night of the long knives' was in 1962 when MacMillan sacked seven of his cabinet. Now, about this "needs budget". Stephen J

3:47pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
.. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change.

That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum.

Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.
and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network.
Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.
.. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy?

Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage.

The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary.

Your command of history is atrocious.

The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.
Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round.
minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.
VOTE 1.
Thatcher 204 – 54.8%.
Heseltine 152 – 40.9%.
Abstentions 16 – 4.3%.

Thatcher failed to achieve a lead over Heseltine that comprised at least 15% of all Conservative MPs. So: -

VOTE 2.
Major 185 – 49.7%.
Heseltine 131 – 35.2%.
Hurd 56 – 15.1%.

Third ballot required, but Heseltine withdraws leaving Major as leader.

I don’t know where you get your data from – it must be that 90% of the internet that you tell us is always wrong.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change. That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum. Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.[/p][/quote]and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network. Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.[/p][/quote].. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy? Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage. The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary. Your command of history is atrocious. The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.[/p][/quote]Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round. minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.[/p][/quote]VOTE 1. Thatcher 204 – 54.8%. Heseltine 152 – 40.9%. Abstentions 16 – 4.3%. Thatcher failed to achieve a lead over Heseltine that comprised at least 15% of all Conservative MPs. So: - VOTE 2. Major 185 – 49.7%. Heseltine 131 – 35.2%. Hurd 56 – 15.1%. Third ballot required, but Heseltine withdraws leaving Major as leader. I don’t know where you get your data from – it must be that 90% of the internet that you tell us is always wrong. freefinker

3:50pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

other cases like in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Capitalist have been able to have a say in Government and to be allowed to remain in government, this can not be said the other way round, wheres the Capitalist have had civil unrest like in Germany, Spain, Italy where the Capitalist have gone out right to murder Socialists.
other cases like in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Capitalist have been able to have a say in Government and to be allowed to remain in government, this can not be said the other way round, wheres the Capitalist have had civil unrest like in Germany, Spain, Italy where the Capitalist have gone out right to murder Socialists. southy

4:08pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
.. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change.

That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum.

Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.
and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network.
Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.
.. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy?

Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage.

The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary.

Your command of history is atrocious.

The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.
Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round.
minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.
VOTE 1.
Thatcher 204 – 54.8%.
Heseltine 152 – 40.9%.
Abstentions 16 – 4.3%.

Thatcher failed to achieve a lead over Heseltine that comprised at least 15% of all Conservative MPs. So: -

VOTE 2.
Major 185 – 49.7%.
Heseltine 131 – 35.2%.
Hurd 56 – 15.1%.

Third ballot required, but Heseltine withdraws leaving Major as leader.

I don’t know where you get your data from – it must be that 90% of the internet that you tell us is always wrong.
If Thatcher won the first round 54.8% of the votes there would of been no second round, she would of remain leader. do a lot more research, the rule at the time for Tory party leadership was 51% of the votes, If none got above 50% of the votes then it would go into another round, with the lowest 1% dropping out of the race.
And it was not just Tory MP's that Voted in the First round, every branch of Tory party committee members voted in the first round, which included Tory party Councillors.
There was 3 votes in all not 2.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change. That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum. Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.[/p][/quote]and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network. Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.[/p][/quote].. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy? Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage. The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary. Your command of history is atrocious. The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.[/p][/quote]Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round. minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.[/p][/quote]VOTE 1. Thatcher 204 – 54.8%. Heseltine 152 – 40.9%. Abstentions 16 – 4.3%. Thatcher failed to achieve a lead over Heseltine that comprised at least 15% of all Conservative MPs. So: - VOTE 2. Major 185 – 49.7%. Heseltine 131 – 35.2%. Hurd 56 – 15.1%. Third ballot required, but Heseltine withdraws leaving Major as leader. I don’t know where you get your data from – it must be that 90% of the internet that you tell us is always wrong.[/p][/quote]If Thatcher won the first round 54.8% of the votes there would of been no second round, she would of remain leader. do a lot more research, the rule at the time for Tory party leadership was 51% of the votes, If none got above 50% of the votes then it would go into another round, with the lowest 1% dropping out of the race. And it was not just Tory MP's that Voted in the First round, every branch of Tory party committee members voted in the first round, which included Tory party Councillors. There was 3 votes in all not 2. southy

4:17pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
.. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change.

That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum.

Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.
and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network.
Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.
.. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy?

Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage.

The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary.

Your command of history is atrocious.

The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.
Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round.
minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.
VOTE 1.
Thatcher 204 – 54.8%.
Heseltine 152 – 40.9%.
Abstentions 16 – 4.3%.

Thatcher failed to achieve a lead over Heseltine that comprised at least 15% of all Conservative MPs. So: -

VOTE 2.
Major 185 – 49.7%.
Heseltine 131 – 35.2%.
Hurd 56 – 15.1%.

Third ballot required, but Heseltine withdraws leaving Major as leader.

I don’t know where you get your data from – it must be that 90% of the internet that you tell us is always wrong.
If Thatcher won the first round 54.8% of the votes there would of been no second round, she would of remain leader. do a lot more research, the rule at the time for Tory party leadership was 51% of the votes, If none got above 50% of the votes then it would go into another round, with the lowest 1% dropping out of the race.
And it was not just Tory MP's that Voted in the First round, every branch of Tory party committee members voted in the first round, which included Tory party Councillors.
There was 3 votes in all not 2.
.. EVERY bit of what you say is wrong.

Added to my 2013 southy's bloomers list. Only half way through January and already 4 entries.

Now, how about answering Stephen J?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change. That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum. Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.[/p][/quote]and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network. Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.[/p][/quote].. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy? Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage. The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary. Your command of history is atrocious. The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.[/p][/quote]Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round. minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.[/p][/quote]VOTE 1. Thatcher 204 – 54.8%. Heseltine 152 – 40.9%. Abstentions 16 – 4.3%. Thatcher failed to achieve a lead over Heseltine that comprised at least 15% of all Conservative MPs. So: - VOTE 2. Major 185 – 49.7%. Heseltine 131 – 35.2%. Hurd 56 – 15.1%. Third ballot required, but Heseltine withdraws leaving Major as leader. I don’t know where you get your data from – it must be that 90% of the internet that you tell us is always wrong.[/p][/quote]If Thatcher won the first round 54.8% of the votes there would of been no second round, she would of remain leader. do a lot more research, the rule at the time for Tory party leadership was 51% of the votes, If none got above 50% of the votes then it would go into another round, with the lowest 1% dropping out of the race. And it was not just Tory MP's that Voted in the First round, every branch of Tory party committee members voted in the first round, which included Tory party Councillors. There was 3 votes in all not 2.[/p][/quote].. EVERY bit of what you say is wrong. Added to my 2013 southy's bloomers list. Only half way through January and already 4 entries. Now, how about answering Stephen J? freefinker

4:21pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

Stephen got answered all ready, Like i said time will prove me right like it as in the pass all ready.

any way Free you taking the artical off subject yet again, get back to what artical is all about will you or are you that weak in politics
Stephen got answered all ready, Like i said time will prove me right like it as in the pass all ready. any way Free you taking the artical off subject yet again, get back to what artical is all about will you or are you that weak in politics southy

4:23pm Mon 14 Jan 13

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
The Tory council left this lot a healthy emergency fund.
They say they got more than expected?
Yes they did as they also got £8million thanks to a grant applied for by the Tories which Labour increased & were given by the Government plus this extra £5million.
so in total they are £13million better off than the Tories had budgeted for & also they're seeing an increase in business rates revenue so why is it that the party Labour accused of going to cut services which had no plans to do so with less money than Labour have got?
Why if they didn't know what the budget for this year & next was did they restore pay?
the money spent doing this would now have meant no cuts in services which is exactly what the Tories said when they implemented pay cuts?
I'm getting a rise in my council tax yet if it wasn't for the grant I woul;d be getting less for more money & some idiots want council tax to rtise more?
Don't they remember what happened in Liverpool where the council just hammered the tax payers or what happened here under Bridles Labour council that just kept on increasing council tax to give her & her colleagues more wages?
They also left a morgage on the 'White Elephant' museum that has to be paid.

With regard increasing council tax, if you want to maintain the services, then it means either raising council tax or receiving a larger grant from the government.

The city council's hands are tied. The Tory-led government have cut their grant, and have also prevented them from increasing the council tax.

By the same token, the government have done sweet FA to keep costs down eg fuel prices, which has increased the cost of collecting rubbish.

Royston Smith&Co wanted to cut council workers' wages, with no thought for the fact that their wages had already been on hold, but the cost of living had been rising.

I seem to recall that there had been no suggestion that city councillors should take a cut at the same time, but if I am wrong on that one, I am sure that you will leap to the defence of your beloved leader.
Tell me wasn't it a Labour Government that disbanded a Labour council in Liverpool for going way over the top on Council tax?
Wasn't there a limit you could raise said Council tax under the last Labour Government?
Why do people like you say raise the tax?
Under June Bridle the amount of people who refused to pay or just couldn't afford to pay her Tax went up each year as she raised tax each year.
Keep the tax at a low level & more people can afford to pay it haven't you such an intelligent person worked that out yet?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: The Tory council left this lot a healthy emergency fund. They say they got more than expected? Yes they did as they also got £8million thanks to a grant applied for by the Tories which Labour increased & were given by the Government plus this extra £5million. so in total they are £13million better off than the Tories had budgeted for & also they're seeing an increase in business rates revenue so why is it that the party Labour accused of going to cut services which had no plans to do so with less money than Labour have got? Why if they didn't know what the budget for this year & next was did they restore pay? the money spent doing this would now have meant no cuts in services which is exactly what the Tories said when they implemented pay cuts? I'm getting a rise in my council tax yet if it wasn't for the grant I woul;d be getting less for more money & some idiots want council tax to rtise more? Don't they remember what happened in Liverpool where the council just hammered the tax payers or what happened here under Bridles Labour council that just kept on increasing council tax to give her & her colleagues more wages?[/p][/quote]They also left a morgage on the 'White Elephant' museum that has to be paid. With regard increasing council tax, if you want to maintain the services, then it means either raising council tax or receiving a larger grant from the government. The city council's hands are tied. The Tory-led government have cut their grant, and have also prevented them from increasing the council tax. By the same token, the government have done sweet FA to keep costs down eg fuel prices, which has increased the cost of collecting rubbish. Royston Smith&Co wanted to cut council workers' wages, with no thought for the fact that their wages had already been on hold, but the cost of living had been rising. I seem to recall that there had been no suggestion that city councillors should take a cut at the same time, but if I am wrong on that one, I am sure that you will leap to the defence of your beloved leader.[/p][/quote]Tell me wasn't it a Labour Government that disbanded a Labour council in Liverpool for going way over the top on Council tax? Wasn't there a limit you could raise said Council tax under the last Labour Government? Why do people like you say raise the tax? Under June Bridle the amount of people who refused to pay or just couldn't afford to pay her Tax went up each year as she raised tax each year. Keep the tax at a low level & more people can afford to pay it haven't you such an intelligent person worked that out yet? loosehead

4:28pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Stephen got answered all ready, Like i said time will prove me right like it as in the pass all ready.

any way Free you taking the artical off subject yet again, get back to what artical is all about will you or are you that weak in politics
In what sense did I get an answer about your alternative "needs budget"?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Stephen got answered all ready, Like i said time will prove me right like it as in the pass all ready. any way Free you taking the artical off subject yet again, get back to what artical is all about will you or are you that weak in politics[/p][/quote]In what sense did I get an answer about your alternative "needs budget"? Stephen J

4:29pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Stephen got answered all ready, Like i said time will prove me right like it as in the pass all ready.

any way Free you taking the artical off subject yet again, get back to what artical is all about will you or are you that weak in politics
.. I think it was southy 1:56pm Mon 14 Jan 13 that first brings up Thatcher.

No, you haven'y answered Stephen J at 2:19pm - "So, there is an alternative and you've seen it put in front of the council. But what is it?"

Well, what is it?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Stephen got answered all ready, Like i said time will prove me right like it as in the pass all ready. any way Free you taking the artical off subject yet again, get back to what artical is all about will you or are you that weak in politics[/p][/quote].. I think it was southy 1:56pm Mon 14 Jan 13 that first brings up Thatcher. No, you haven'y answered Stephen J at 2:19pm - "So, there is an alternative and you've seen it put in front of the council. But what is it?" Well, what is it? freefinker

4:31pm Mon 14 Jan 13

loosehead says...

not only did this council get £8million from a grant & now this £5million they also got increased revenue from business rates plus money for transport plus a pupil premium plus money for platform rd , so please explain to me this we as the people of this city are going to have to pay more council tax which many of us are going to struggle to find yet £3-7million is being handed over to restore pay.
the amount to the lower cut would be lost in council tax.
yet the ones who will get the most are those on the most is that the socialist way?
Exactly how much did this council lose when they pulled out of the deal with the Island Council?
How anyone can stick up for a council that suddenly finds £5million gets me as this shows total incompetence & I feel sorry for the voters who were conned by Wiliams lies
not only did this council get £8million from a grant & now this £5million they also got increased revenue from business rates plus money for transport plus a pupil premium plus money for platform rd , so please explain to me this we as the people of this city are going to have to pay more council tax which many of us are going to struggle to find yet £3-7million is being handed over to restore pay. the amount to the lower cut would be lost in council tax. yet the ones who will get the most are those on the most is that the socialist way? Exactly how much did this council lose when they pulled out of the deal with the Island Council? How anyone can stick up for a council that suddenly finds £5million gets me as this shows total incompetence & I feel sorry for the voters who were conned by Wiliams lies loosehead

4:48pm Mon 14 Jan 13

kingnotail says...

southy wrote:
Stephen got answered all ready, Like i said time will prove me right like it as in the pass all ready.

any way Free you taking the artical off subject yet again, get back to what artical is all about will you or are you that weak in politics
Spelling and grammar worse than a seven year-old.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Stephen got answered all ready, Like i said time will prove me right like it as in the pass all ready. any way Free you taking the artical off subject yet again, get back to what artical is all about will you or are you that weak in politics[/p][/quote]Spelling and grammar worse than a seven year-old. kingnotail

5:08pm Mon 14 Jan 13

bigfella777 says...

It doesnt take a genius to work out what is wrong with council tax it's the banding pure and simple.
Take band A for example, up to 40k?? How can anybody have a property worth that, you could barely get a garage for 40k.
Then look at band G, 160k to 320 k, that's just about everyone with a 3 bed house for my reckoning,but they dont charge that, they put most people in band F.
Why dont they sort this out and lets have some realistic property prices put in and make the people with the most pay more.It's not rocket science.



A Up to £40,000
B Over £40,000 and up to £52,000
C Over £52,000 and up to £68,000
D Over £68,000 and up to £88,000
E Over £88,000 and up to £120,000
F Over £120,000 and up to £160,000
G Over £160,000 and up to £320,000
H Over £320,000
It doesnt take a genius to work out what is wrong with council tax it's the banding pure and simple. Take band A for example, up to 40k?? How can anybody have a property worth that, you could barely get a garage for 40k. Then look at band G, 160k to 320 k, that's just about everyone with a 3 bed house for my reckoning,but they dont charge that, they put most people in band F. Why dont they sort this out and lets have some realistic property prices put in and make the people with the most pay more.It's not rocket science. A Up to £40,000 B Over £40,000 and up to £52,000 C Over £52,000 and up to £68,000 D Over £68,000 and up to £88,000 E Over £88,000 and up to £120,000 F Over £120,000 and up to £160,000 G Over £160,000 and up to £320,000 H Over £320,000 bigfella777

5:12pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Paramjit Bahia says...

I wonder if fans of Conservatised NuLabour still be defending this hypocrisy if Council was under Tory control.

Why double standards?

FACT even when mean minded tight fisted and unprincipled ConDem Coalition run government has given 5 million pounds to Southampton Council, the NuLabourites in power are only thinking of spending 4 millions on services and sit on the rest.

But then have the cheek of pleading poverty to the people as excuse for not saving their badly needed services.

If they do not use whole of the money given by central government then how will they be able to argue for higher funding?

It will only provide Pickles with excuse to decrease central contribution to Council’s funds.
I wonder if fans of Conservatised NuLabour still be defending this hypocrisy if Council was under Tory control. Why double standards? FACT even when mean minded tight fisted and unprincipled ConDem Coalition run government has given 5 million pounds to Southampton Council, the NuLabourites in power are only thinking of spending 4 millions on services and sit on the rest. But then have the cheek of pleading poverty to the people as excuse for not saving their badly needed services. If they do not use whole of the money given by central government then how will they be able to argue for higher funding? It will only provide Pickles with excuse to decrease central contribution to Council’s funds. Paramjit Bahia

5:17pm Mon 14 Jan 13

gazw1976 says...

bet the 1 million disapears once its been put away for a rainy day
bet the 1 million disapears once its been put away for a rainy day gazw1976

5:18pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Paramjit Bahia says...

Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
May I add to your imagined scenario and find simple answer to Southy’s circumstances and various solutions suggested by you?

If Southy was employed by ‘Bankers’ and was member of some decent trade union, leadership of which may not be in the pockets of NuLabourites but committed to looking after the interests of members, he along with his work colleagues would have made sure that the bosses were not allowed to get away with cutting wages.

So there won’t be any hardshipto deal with.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]May I add to your imagined scenario and find simple answer to Southy’s circumstances and various solutions suggested by you? If Southy was employed by ‘Bankers’ and was member of some decent trade union, leadership of which may not be in the pockets of NuLabourites but committed to looking after the interests of members, he along with his work colleagues would have made sure that the bosses were not allowed to get away with cutting wages. So there won’t be any hardshipto deal with. Paramjit Bahia

5:24pm Mon 14 Jan 13

orderoutofchaos says...

It wasn't "unaccounted" for. Central government only announced what it was giving local governments a few days before xmas. The calculations are based on what the council believes its going to get. It's given no indication before.

It's better to have more money than less is it not? Even when something's positive you still like to moan, even when you have no idea what you are talking about!
It wasn't "unaccounted" for. Central government only announced what it was giving local governments a few days before xmas. The calculations are based on what the council believes its going to get. It's given no indication before. It's better to have more money than less is it not? Even when something's positive you still like to moan, even when you have no idea what you are talking about! orderoutofchaos

5:31pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

bigfella777 wrote:
It doesnt take a genius to work out what is wrong with council tax it's the banding pure and simple.
Take band A for example, up to 40k?? How can anybody have a property worth that, you could barely get a garage for 40k.
Then look at band G, 160k to 320 k, that's just about everyone with a 3 bed house for my reckoning,but they dont charge that, they put most people in band F.
Why dont they sort this out and lets have some realistic property prices put in and make the people with the most pay more.It's not rocket science.



A Up to £40,000
B Over £40,000 and up to £52,000
C Over £52,000 and up to £68,000
D Over £68,000 and up to £88,000
E Over £88,000 and up to £120,000
F Over £120,000 and up to £160,000
G Over £160,000 and up to £320,000
H Over £320,000
.. it's all relative.

It's based upon the assumed property value as of 1 April 1991 in England.

Yes, we could spend a lot of cash revaluing every house and then adjust the banding zones - but it will still bring in the same amount of cash.

What they need to do, in my opinion, is extend the number of bands at the higher end so those in really expensive homes pay a lot more. But that’s a little too like LibDem policy for my own safety.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: It doesnt take a genius to work out what is wrong with council tax it's the banding pure and simple. Take band A for example, up to 40k?? How can anybody have a property worth that, you could barely get a garage for 40k. Then look at band G, 160k to 320 k, that's just about everyone with a 3 bed house for my reckoning,but they dont charge that, they put most people in band F. Why dont they sort this out and lets have some realistic property prices put in and make the people with the most pay more.It's not rocket science. A Up to £40,000 B Over £40,000 and up to £52,000 C Over £52,000 and up to £68,000 D Over £68,000 and up to £88,000 E Over £88,000 and up to £120,000 F Over £120,000 and up to £160,000 G Over £160,000 and up to £320,000 H Over £320,000[/p][/quote].. it's all relative. It's based upon the assumed property value as of 1 April 1991 in England. Yes, we could spend a lot of cash revaluing every house and then adjust the banding zones - but it will still bring in the same amount of cash. What they need to do, in my opinion, is extend the number of bands at the higher end so those in really expensive homes pay a lot more. But that’s a little too like LibDem policy for my own safety. freefinker

5:34pm Mon 14 Jan 13

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
not only did this council get £8million from a grant & now this £5million they also got increased revenue from business rates plus money for transport plus a pupil premium plus money for platform rd , so please explain to me this we as the people of this city are going to have to pay more council tax which many of us are going to struggle to find yet £3-7million is being handed over to restore pay. the amount to the lower cut would be lost in council tax. yet the ones who will get the most are those on the most is that the socialist way? Exactly how much did this council lose when they pulled out of the deal with the Island Council? How anyone can stick up for a council that suddenly finds £5million gets me as this shows total incompetence & I feel sorry for the voters who were conned by Wiliams lies
£8m grant was for recycling initiatives only. Increased business rate contributions is part of the £5m. Transport money is to pay for sustainable transport initiatives. Pupil premium goes direct to schools. Platform road money is to pay fir platform road. You may not realise it, but you can't apply for grant money for one thing and spend it on another! Only £5m new here. A substantial amount, lets hope it saves some vital services.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: not only did this council get £8million from a grant & now this £5million they also got increased revenue from business rates plus money for transport plus a pupil premium plus money for platform rd , so please explain to me this we as the people of this city are going to have to pay more council tax which many of us are going to struggle to find yet £3-7million is being handed over to restore pay. the amount to the lower cut would be lost in council tax. yet the ones who will get the most are those on the most is that the socialist way? Exactly how much did this council lose when they pulled out of the deal with the Island Council? How anyone can stick up for a council that suddenly finds £5million gets me as this shows total incompetence & I feel sorry for the voters who were conned by Wiliams lies[/p][/quote]£8m grant was for recycling initiatives only. Increased business rate contributions is part of the £5m. Transport money is to pay for sustainable transport initiatives. Pupil premium goes direct to schools. Platform road money is to pay fir platform road. You may not realise it, but you can't apply for grant money for one thing and spend it on another! Only £5m new here. A substantial amount, lets hope it saves some vital services. thinklikealocal

5:42pm Mon 14 Jan 13

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote: The Tory council left this lot a healthy emergency fund. They say they got more than expected? Yes they did as they also got £8million thanks to a grant applied for by the Tories which Labour increased & were given by the Government plus this extra £5million. so in total they are £13million better off than the Tories had budgeted for & also they're seeing an increase in business rates revenue so why is it that the party Labour accused of going to cut services which had no plans to do so with less money than Labour have got? Why if they didn't know what the budget for this year & next was did they restore pay? the money spent doing this would now have meant no cuts in services which is exactly what the Tories said when they implemented pay cuts? I'm getting a rise in my council tax yet if it wasn't for the grant I woul;d be getting less for more money & some idiots want council tax to rtise more? Don't they remember what happened in Liverpool where the council just hammered the tax payers or what happened here under Bridles Labour council that just kept on increasing council tax to give her & her colleagues more wages?
They also left a morgage on the 'White Elephant' museum that has to be paid. With regard increasing council tax, if you want to maintain the services, then it means either raising council tax or receiving a larger grant from the government. The city council's hands are tied. The Tory-led government have cut their grant, and have also prevented them from increasing the council tax. By the same token, the government have done sweet FA to keep costs down eg fuel prices, which has increased the cost of collecting rubbish. Royston Smith&Co wanted to cut council workers' wages, with no thought for the fact that their wages had already been on hold, but the cost of living had been rising. I seem to recall that there had been no suggestion that city councillors should take a cut at the same time, but if I am wrong on that one, I am sure that you will leap to the defence of your beloved leader.
Tell me wasn't it a Labour Government that disbanded a Labour council in Liverpool for going way over the top on Council tax? Wasn't there a limit you could raise said Council tax under the last Labour Government? Why do people like you say raise the tax? Under June Bridle the amount of people who refused to pay or just couldn't afford to pay her Tax went up each year as she raised tax each year. Keep the tax at a low level & more people can afford to pay it haven't you such an intelligent person worked that out yet?
For god's sake stop banging on about things that happened thirty years ago. It is predictable, boring and adds nothing useful to the debate!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: The Tory council left this lot a healthy emergency fund. They say they got more than expected? Yes they did as they also got £8million thanks to a grant applied for by the Tories which Labour increased & were given by the Government plus this extra £5million. so in total they are £13million better off than the Tories had budgeted for & also they're seeing an increase in business rates revenue so why is it that the party Labour accused of going to cut services which had no plans to do so with less money than Labour have got? Why if they didn't know what the budget for this year & next was did they restore pay? the money spent doing this would now have meant no cuts in services which is exactly what the Tories said when they implemented pay cuts? I'm getting a rise in my council tax yet if it wasn't for the grant I woul;d be getting less for more money & some idiots want council tax to rtise more? Don't they remember what happened in Liverpool where the council just hammered the tax payers or what happened here under Bridles Labour council that just kept on increasing council tax to give her & her colleagues more wages?[/p][/quote]They also left a morgage on the 'White Elephant' museum that has to be paid. With regard increasing council tax, if you want to maintain the services, then it means either raising council tax or receiving a larger grant from the government. The city council's hands are tied. The Tory-led government have cut their grant, and have also prevented them from increasing the council tax. By the same token, the government have done sweet FA to keep costs down eg fuel prices, which has increased the cost of collecting rubbish. Royston Smith&Co wanted to cut council workers' wages, with no thought for the fact that their wages had already been on hold, but the cost of living had been rising. I seem to recall that there had been no suggestion that city councillors should take a cut at the same time, but if I am wrong on that one, I am sure that you will leap to the defence of your beloved leader.[/p][/quote]Tell me wasn't it a Labour Government that disbanded a Labour council in Liverpool for going way over the top on Council tax? Wasn't there a limit you could raise said Council tax under the last Labour Government? Why do people like you say raise the tax? Under June Bridle the amount of people who refused to pay or just couldn't afford to pay her Tax went up each year as she raised tax each year. Keep the tax at a low level & more people can afford to pay it haven't you such an intelligent person worked that out yet?[/p][/quote]For god's sake stop banging on about things that happened thirty years ago. It is predictable, boring and adds nothing useful to the debate! thinklikealocal

5:43pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Cyber__Fug says...

Oh dear Southy... I have been busy today and only just got to read this.

Are your TUSC peers still cringing when they hear your name ?

I see the fictitious needs budget has been presented to the council now as well.

You really could not make his stupidity up..,
Oh dear Southy... I have been busy today and only just got to read this. Are your TUSC peers still cringing when they hear your name ? I see the fictitious needs budget has been presented to the council now as well. You really could not make his stupidity up.., Cyber__Fug

5:52pm Mon 14 Jan 13

befriendly says...

bigfella777 wrote:
It doesnt take a genius to work out what is wrong with council tax it's the banding pure and simple.
Take band A for example, up to 40k?? How can anybody have a property worth that, you could barely get a garage for 40k.
Then look at band G, 160k to 320 k, that's just about everyone with a 3 bed house for my reckoning,but they dont charge that, they put most people in band F.
Why dont they sort this out and lets have some realistic property prices put in and make the people with the most pay more.It's not rocket science.



A Up to £40,000
B Over £40,000 and up to £52,000
C Over £52,000 and up to £68,000
D Over £68,000 and up to £88,000
E Over £88,000 and up to £120,000
F Over £120,000 and up to £160,000
G Over £160,000 and up to £320,000
H Over £320,000
council tax prices were set in 1993 as an average for the whole country and if you'd care to watch certain TV programmes you will discover you can by a three bedroom house up north for as little as 29k. Location, Location, Location. I've just moved down this way because I had to down size and my present property would have cost me what I got for my old house back where I used to live. My neighbor wanted to move nearer her family only to discover a one bedroom place near them would cost her more than what she'd get for her three bed place here.I am at present in band D, but by updating house prices to today's prices I'd probably be in band G, knocking on H and if that happened I'd qualify for housing benefits. So if you don't mind paying a lot more on your tax and finding milllions more to join you I and many others will be ready to accept your generosity.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: It doesnt take a genius to work out what is wrong with council tax it's the banding pure and simple. Take band A for example, up to 40k?? How can anybody have a property worth that, you could barely get a garage for 40k. Then look at band G, 160k to 320 k, that's just about everyone with a 3 bed house for my reckoning,but they dont charge that, they put most people in band F. Why dont they sort this out and lets have some realistic property prices put in and make the people with the most pay more.It's not rocket science. A Up to £40,000 B Over £40,000 and up to £52,000 C Over £52,000 and up to £68,000 D Over £68,000 and up to £88,000 E Over £88,000 and up to £120,000 F Over £120,000 and up to £160,000 G Over £160,000 and up to £320,000 H Over £320,000[/p][/quote]council tax prices were set in 1993 as an average for the whole country and if you'd care to watch certain TV programmes you will discover you can by a three bedroom house up north for as little as 29k. Location, Location, Location. I've just moved down this way because I had to down size and my present property would have cost me what I got for my old house back where I used to live. My neighbor wanted to move nearer her family only to discover a one bedroom place near them would cost her more than what she'd get for her three bed place here.I am at present in band D, but by updating house prices to today's prices I'd probably be in band G, knocking on H and if that happened I'd qualify for housing benefits. So if you don't mind paying a lot more on your tax and finding milllions more to join you I and many others will be ready to accept your generosity. befriendly

6:12pm Mon 14 Jan 13

thinklikealocal says...

good-gosh wrote:
Unaccounted £5m is beyond belief.
Golly gosh, Good-Gosh has got it wrong again on the accounting front...........
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: Unaccounted £5m is beyond belief.[/p][/quote]Golly gosh, Good-Gosh has got it wrong again on the accounting front........... thinklikealocal

6:17pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

southy wrote:
other cases like in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Capitalist have been able to have a say in Government and to be allowed to remain in government, this can not be said the other way round, wheres the Capitalist have had civil unrest like in Germany, Spain, Italy where the Capitalist have gone out right to murder Socialists.
By my counting you have 7 different countries to chose from, please emirgrate to one of the seven and take freefinker with,,,others maybe able to word in edgeways then
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: other cases like in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Capitalist have been able to have a say in Government and to be allowed to remain in government, this can not be said the other way round, wheres the Capitalist have had civil unrest like in Germany, Spain, Italy where the Capitalist have gone out right to murder Socialists.[/p][/quote]By my counting you have 7 different countries to chose from, please emirgrate to one of the seven and take freefinker with,,,others maybe able to word in edgeways then Outside of the Box

6:26pm Mon 14 Jan 13

freefinker says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
southy wrote:
other cases like in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Capitalist have been able to have a say in Government and to be allowed to remain in government, this can not be said the other way round, wheres the Capitalist have had civil unrest like in Germany, Spain, Italy where the Capitalist have gone out right to murder Socialists.
By my counting you have 7 different countries to chose from, please emirgrate to one of the seven and take freefinker with,,,others maybe able to word in edgeways then
.. you seem to have got your word in.

All I do is respond to southy's nonsense and factual inaccuracies.
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: other cases like in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Capitalist have been able to have a say in Government and to be allowed to remain in government, this can not be said the other way round, wheres the Capitalist have had civil unrest like in Germany, Spain, Italy where the Capitalist have gone out right to murder Socialists.[/p][/quote]By my counting you have 7 different countries to chose from, please emirgrate to one of the seven and take freefinker with,,,others maybe able to word in edgeways then[/p][/quote].. you seem to have got your word in. All I do is respond to southy's nonsense and factual inaccuracies. freefinker

6:32pm Mon 14 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

If they stash 1m into reserves, won't the government think we don't need it and reduce our budget even further?

Spend it all and plead poverty! That way we can ask for more money?
If they stash 1m into reserves, won't the government think we don't need it and reduce our budget even further? Spend it all and plead poverty! That way we can ask for more money? IronLady2010

6:34pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Donald2000 says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
not only did this council get £8million from a grant & now this £5million they also got increased revenue from business rates plus money for transport plus a pupil premium plus money for platform rd , so please explain to me this we as the people of this city are going to have to pay more council tax which many of us are going to struggle to find yet £3-7million is being handed over to restore pay. the amount to the lower cut would be lost in council tax. yet the ones who will get the most are those on the most is that the socialist way? Exactly how much did this council lose when they pulled out of the deal with the Island Council? How anyone can stick up for a council that suddenly finds £5million gets me as this shows total incompetence & I feel sorry for the voters who were conned by Wiliams lies
£8m grant was for recycling initiatives only. Increased business rate contributions is part of the £5m. Transport money is to pay for sustainable transport initiatives. Pupil premium goes direct to schools. Platform road money is to pay fir platform road. You may not realise it, but you can't apply for grant money for one thing and spend it on another! Only £5m new here. A substantial amount, lets hope it saves some vital services.
Money from one thing does not go to another...pretty obvious you have never been an accountant, is it not?
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: not only did this council get £8million from a grant & now this £5million they also got increased revenue from business rates plus money for transport plus a pupil premium plus money for platform rd , so please explain to me this we as the people of this city are going to have to pay more council tax which many of us are going to struggle to find yet £3-7million is being handed over to restore pay. the amount to the lower cut would be lost in council tax. yet the ones who will get the most are those on the most is that the socialist way? Exactly how much did this council lose when they pulled out of the deal with the Island Council? How anyone can stick up for a council that suddenly finds £5million gets me as this shows total incompetence & I feel sorry for the voters who were conned by Wiliams lies[/p][/quote]£8m grant was for recycling initiatives only. Increased business rate contributions is part of the £5m. Transport money is to pay for sustainable transport initiatives. Pupil premium goes direct to schools. Platform road money is to pay fir platform road. You may not realise it, but you can't apply for grant money for one thing and spend it on another! Only £5m new here. A substantial amount, lets hope it saves some vital services.[/p][/quote]Money from one thing does not go to another...pretty obvious you have never been an accountant, is it not? Donald2000

9:13pm Mon 14 Jan 13

loosehead says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote: The Tory council left this lot a healthy emergency fund. They say they got more than expected? Yes they did as they also got £8million thanks to a grant applied for by the Tories which Labour increased & were given by the Government plus this extra £5million. so in total they are £13million better off than the Tories had budgeted for & also they're seeing an increase in business rates revenue so why is it that the party Labour accused of going to cut services which had no plans to do so with less money than Labour have got? Why if they didn't know what the budget for this year & next was did they restore pay? the money spent doing this would now have meant no cuts in services which is exactly what the Tories said when they implemented pay cuts? I'm getting a rise in my council tax yet if it wasn't for the grant I woul;d be getting less for more money & some idiots want council tax to rtise more? Don't they remember what happened in Liverpool where the council just hammered the tax payers or what happened here under Bridles Labour council that just kept on increasing council tax to give her & her colleagues more wages?
They also left a morgage on the 'White Elephant' museum that has to be paid. With regard increasing council tax, if you want to maintain the services, then it means either raising council tax or receiving a larger grant from the government. The city council's hands are tied. The Tory-led government have cut their grant, and have also prevented them from increasing the council tax. By the same token, the government have done sweet FA to keep costs down eg fuel prices, which has increased the cost of collecting rubbish. Royston Smith&Co wanted to cut council workers' wages, with no thought for the fact that their wages had already been on hold, but the cost of living had been rising. I seem to recall that there had been no suggestion that city councillors should take a cut at the same time, but if I am wrong on that one, I am sure that you will leap to the defence of your beloved leader.
Tell me wasn't it a Labour Government that disbanded a Labour council in Liverpool for going way over the top on Council tax? Wasn't there a limit you could raise said Council tax under the last Labour Government? Why do people like you say raise the tax? Under June Bridle the amount of people who refused to pay or just couldn't afford to pay her Tax went up each year as she raised tax each year. Keep the tax at a low level & more people can afford to pay it haven't you such an intelligent person worked that out yet?
For god's sake stop banging on about things that happened thirty years ago. It is predictable, boring and adds nothing useful to the debate!
You thick woman.when they announced the cuts they had already included shafting 1-10 refuse workers but through this grant ( weekly collection guarantee) those jobs were saved so here's £8million more than they thought they were going to get.
then £5million from the government more than they thought they were going to get & if you read the article properly instead of blindly supporting Labour they were also getting extra due to increased revenue from business rates?
I can't expect you will argue about this councils decision to restore pay before they knew exactly what they were getting so spending at least £3million they never had so meaning we had to cut services?
Thirty years ago? Really we've had 4 years of a Tory council a few years of a Lab/Lib coalition council so exactly where do you get 30 years?
I remember Deacons Tory council now that was about that would be about that or are you saying West Quay is about 35 years old as it was his council that signed up to Marlands & West Quay Idiot.
I know you won't like to hear this but you didn't care how many jobs were lost as long as you got your pay restored & now you don't care about what services are cut in this City as you don't live here do you Eastleigh Girl
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: The Tory council left this lot a healthy emergency fund. They say they got more than expected? Yes they did as they also got £8million thanks to a grant applied for by the Tories which Labour increased & were given by the Government plus this extra £5million. so in total they are £13million better off than the Tories had budgeted for & also they're seeing an increase in business rates revenue so why is it that the party Labour accused of going to cut services which had no plans to do so with less money than Labour have got? Why if they didn't know what the budget for this year & next was did they restore pay? the money spent doing this would now have meant no cuts in services which is exactly what the Tories said when they implemented pay cuts? I'm getting a rise in my council tax yet if it wasn't for the grant I woul;d be getting less for more money & some idiots want council tax to rtise more? Don't they remember what happened in Liverpool where the council just hammered the tax payers or what happened here under Bridles Labour council that just kept on increasing council tax to give her & her colleagues more wages?[/p][/quote]They also left a morgage on the 'White Elephant' museum that has to be paid. With regard increasing council tax, if you want to maintain the services, then it means either raising council tax or receiving a larger grant from the government. The city council's hands are tied. The Tory-led government have cut their grant, and have also prevented them from increasing the council tax. By the same token, the government have done sweet FA to keep costs down eg fuel prices, which has increased the cost of collecting rubbish. Royston Smith&Co wanted to cut council workers' wages, with no thought for the fact that their wages had already been on hold, but the cost of living had been rising. I seem to recall that there had been no suggestion that city councillors should take a cut at the same time, but if I am wrong on that one, I am sure that you will leap to the defence of your beloved leader.[/p][/quote]Tell me wasn't it a Labour Government that disbanded a Labour council in Liverpool for going way over the top on Council tax? Wasn't there a limit you could raise said Council tax under the last Labour Government? Why do people like you say raise the tax? Under June Bridle the amount of people who refused to pay or just couldn't afford to pay her Tax went up each year as she raised tax each year. Keep the tax at a low level & more people can afford to pay it haven't you such an intelligent person worked that out yet?[/p][/quote]For god's sake stop banging on about things that happened thirty years ago. It is predictable, boring and adds nothing useful to the debate![/p][/quote]You thick woman.when they announced the cuts they had already included shafting 1-10 refuse workers but through this grant ( weekly collection guarantee) those jobs were saved so here's £8million more than they thought they were going to get. then £5million from the government more than they thought they were going to get & if you read the article properly instead of blindly supporting Labour they were also getting extra due to increased revenue from business rates? I can't expect you will argue about this councils decision to restore pay before they knew exactly what they were getting so spending at least £3million they never had so meaning we had to cut services? Thirty years ago? Really we've had 4 years of a Tory council a few years of a Lab/Lib coalition council so exactly where do you get 30 years? I remember Deacons Tory council now that was about that would be about that or are you saying West Quay is about 35 years old as it was his council that signed up to Marlands & West Quay Idiot. I know you won't like to hear this but you didn't care how many jobs were lost as long as you got your pay restored & now you don't care about what services are cut in this City as you don't live here do you Eastleigh Girl loosehead

9:22pm Mon 14 Jan 13

loosehead says...

Donald2000 wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
not only did this council get £8million from a grant & now this £5million they also got increased revenue from business rates plus money for transport plus a pupil premium plus money for platform rd , so please explain to me this we as the people of this city are going to have to pay more council tax which many of us are going to struggle to find yet £3-7million is being handed over to restore pay. the amount to the lower cut would be lost in council tax. yet the ones who will get the most are those on the most is that the socialist way? Exactly how much did this council lose when they pulled out of the deal with the Island Council? How anyone can stick up for a council that suddenly finds £5million gets me as this shows total incompetence & I feel sorry for the voters who were conned by Wiliams lies
£8m grant was for recycling initiatives only. Increased business rate contributions is part of the £5m. Transport money is to pay for sustainable transport initiatives. Pupil premium goes direct to schools. Platform road money is to pay fir platform road. You may not realise it, but you can't apply for grant money for one thing and spend it on another! Only £5m new here. A substantial amount, lets hope it saves some vital services.
Money from one thing does not go to another...pretty obvious you have never been an accountant, is it not?
I never said the grant money could be spent on other services what I said was they were not as badly off as the Tory council had planned for & if that grant money hadn't been given more council workers & services would have been cut.
So that grant saved refuse collectors jobs that £5million should save services .
Why is £1million being kept? is it to go with the other £3million needed to restore pay that this council in their own words couldn't afford to pay?
didn't the Tory council say the pay cuts would mean not so many job cuts & protection of services?
What about the million pound deal with the Island which Williams scrapped straight away?
Did Labour not look the possible cuts that were there in the public domain for all to see before scrapping that deal ,restoring pay both things put into place to save services?
Or wouldn't Labours pay masters agree with not restoring pay?
[quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: not only did this council get £8million from a grant & now this £5million they also got increased revenue from business rates plus money for transport plus a pupil premium plus money for platform rd , so please explain to me this we as the people of this city are going to have to pay more council tax which many of us are going to struggle to find yet £3-7million is being handed over to restore pay. the amount to the lower cut would be lost in council tax. yet the ones who will get the most are those on the most is that the socialist way? Exactly how much did this council lose when they pulled out of the deal with the Island Council? How anyone can stick up for a council that suddenly finds £5million gets me as this shows total incompetence & I feel sorry for the voters who were conned by Wiliams lies[/p][/quote]£8m grant was for recycling initiatives only. Increased business rate contributions is part of the £5m. Transport money is to pay for sustainable transport initiatives. Pupil premium goes direct to schools. Platform road money is to pay fir platform road. You may not realise it, but you can't apply for grant money for one thing and spend it on another! Only £5m new here. A substantial amount, lets hope it saves some vital services.[/p][/quote]Money from one thing does not go to another...pretty obvious you have never been an accountant, is it not?[/p][/quote]I never said the grant money could be spent on other services what I said was they were not as badly off as the Tory council had planned for & if that grant money hadn't been given more council workers & services would have been cut. So that grant saved refuse collectors jobs that £5million should save services . Why is £1million being kept? is it to go with the other £3million needed to restore pay that this council in their own words couldn't afford to pay? didn't the Tory council say the pay cuts would mean not so many job cuts & protection of services? What about the million pound deal with the Island which Williams scrapped straight away? Did Labour not look the possible cuts that were there in the public domain for all to see before scrapping that deal ,restoring pay both things put into place to save services? Or wouldn't Labours pay masters agree with not restoring pay? loosehead

11:03pm Mon 14 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Stephen got answered all ready, Like i said time will prove me right like it as in the pass all ready.

any way Free you taking the artical off subject yet again, get back to what artical is all about will you or are you that weak in politics
In what sense did I get an answer about your alternative "needs budget"?
Southy, watch the film 'Ironlady' you'll love it ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Stephen got answered all ready, Like i said time will prove me right like it as in the pass all ready. any way Free you taking the artical off subject yet again, get back to what artical is all about will you or are you that weak in politics[/p][/quote]In what sense did I get an answer about your alternative "needs budget"?[/p][/quote]Southy, watch the film 'Ironlady' you'll love it ;-) IronLady2010

11:27pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Shoong says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
.. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change.

That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum.

Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.
and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network.
Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.
.. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy?

Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage.

The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary.

Your command of history is atrocious.

The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.
Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round.
minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.
VOTE 1.
Thatcher 204 – 54.8%.
Heseltine 152 – 40.9%.
Abstentions 16 – 4.3%.

Thatcher failed to achieve a lead over Heseltine that comprised at least 15% of all Conservative MPs. So: -

VOTE 2.
Major 185 – 49.7%.
Heseltine 131 – 35.2%.
Hurd 56 – 15.1%.

Third ballot required, but Heseltine withdraws leaving Major as leader.

I don’t know where you get your data from – it must be that 90% of the internet that you tell us is always wrong.
If Thatcher won the first round 54.8% of the votes there would of been no second round, she would of remain leader. do a lot more research, the rule at the time for Tory party leadership was 51% of the votes, If none got above 50% of the votes then it would go into another round, with the lowest 1% dropping out of the race.
And it was not just Tory MP's that Voted in the First round, every branch of Tory party committee members voted in the first round, which included Tory party Councillors.
There was 3 votes in all not 2.
.. EVERY bit of what you say is wrong.

Added to my 2013 southy's bloomers list. Only half way through January and already 4 entries.

Now, how about answering Stephen J?
Look, I can settle this right here and now:

Peter - you are talking complete utter cack.


I'm amazed you don't get paid for it.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change. That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum. Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.[/p][/quote]and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network. Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.[/p][/quote].. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy? Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage. The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary. Your command of history is atrocious. The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.[/p][/quote]Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round. minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.[/p][/quote]VOTE 1. Thatcher 204 – 54.8%. Heseltine 152 – 40.9%. Abstentions 16 – 4.3%. Thatcher failed to achieve a lead over Heseltine that comprised at least 15% of all Conservative MPs. So: - VOTE 2. Major 185 – 49.7%. Heseltine 131 – 35.2%. Hurd 56 – 15.1%. Third ballot required, but Heseltine withdraws leaving Major as leader. I don’t know where you get your data from – it must be that 90% of the internet that you tell us is always wrong.[/p][/quote]If Thatcher won the first round 54.8% of the votes there would of been no second round, she would of remain leader. do a lot more research, the rule at the time for Tory party leadership was 51% of the votes, If none got above 50% of the votes then it would go into another round, with the lowest 1% dropping out of the race. And it was not just Tory MP's that Voted in the First round, every branch of Tory party committee members voted in the first round, which included Tory party Councillors. There was 3 votes in all not 2.[/p][/quote].. EVERY bit of what you say is wrong. Added to my 2013 southy's bloomers list. Only half way through January and already 4 entries. Now, how about answering Stephen J?[/p][/quote]Look, I can settle this right here and now: Peter - you are talking complete utter cack. I'm amazed you don't get paid for it. Shoong

8:25am Tue 15 Jan 13

freemantlegirl2 says...

southy wrote:
Roll on next year in May when theres going to be a back lash against the Labour Council
Just like your other predictions Southy about the minor parties doing well last May... hmmmmm LOL
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Roll on next year in May when theres going to be a back lash against the Labour Council[/p][/quote]Just like your other predictions Southy about the minor parties doing well last May... hmmmmm LOL freemantlegirl2

12:26pm Tue 15 Jan 13

loosehead says...

Shoong wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do?

Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money?

If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced?

If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure.

This may mean buying sausages instead of steak.

Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period.

Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car.

All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so.

That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.
All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: -

“When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.”
“Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.”

You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.
But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.
.. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich.

You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism).
This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight.
This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.
.. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well.

Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they?

So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?
It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.
.. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change.

That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum.

Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.
and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network.
Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.
.. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy?

Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage.

The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary.

Your command of history is atrocious.

The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.
Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round.
minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.
VOTE 1.
Thatcher 204 – 54.8%.
Heseltine 152 – 40.9%.
Abstentions 16 – 4.3%.

Thatcher failed to achieve a lead over Heseltine that comprised at least 15% of all Conservative MPs. So: -

VOTE 2.
Major 185 – 49.7%.
Heseltine 131 – 35.2%.
Hurd 56 – 15.1%.

Third ballot required, but Heseltine withdraws leaving Major as leader.

I don’t know where you get your data from – it must be that 90% of the internet that you tell us is always wrong.
If Thatcher won the first round 54.8% of the votes there would of been no second round, she would of remain leader. do a lot more research, the rule at the time for Tory party leadership was 51% of the votes, If none got above 50% of the votes then it would go into another round, with the lowest 1% dropping out of the race.
And it was not just Tory MP's that Voted in the First round, every branch of Tory party committee members voted in the first round, which included Tory party Councillors.
There was 3 votes in all not 2.
.. EVERY bit of what you say is wrong.

Added to my 2013 southy's bloomers list. Only half way through January and already 4 entries.

Now, how about answering Stephen J?
Look, I can settle this right here and now:

Peter - you are talking complete utter cack.


I'm amazed you don't get paid for it.
personally I don't know what this articles got to do with Maggie being stabbed in the back by Heseltine & John Major ?
Southy The Labour Party has said it's listened to the people after Browns Guff on immigration but have they ?
Milliband is still pro EU?
Milliband & Ed Balls want to resurrect a failure by making people work in any job if they've been unemployed for two years or more or not pay or cut their social payments?
so how do they feed the kids? before they tried this & they would start on the Monday & by the end of the week they either walked out or were sacked so they bought in the 90 day ruling.
unless kids are going to be put into care to get these people to see there's no alternative to working it won't work?
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: southy. If your wages were cut, but food and utility prices were to continue to rise, what would you do? Would you go to the bank or building society and ask to borrow some money? If you did, how would you pay it back when your income had been reduced? If you had any sense (and I am not saying that you have not) you would look to make savings in your expenditure. This may mean buying sausages instead of steak. Turning the central heating down a notch, and having it on for a shorter period. Walking to the next bus stop, and getting off one stop early to reduce the fare, or even walking instead of taking the car. All of these things you would do, not because you wanted to, but circumstances forced you to do so. That is what is happening to the City Council, thanks to a combination of a cut in government grant, and the inability to raise the council tax because, if they do, the government will reduce their grant by a similar amount.[/p][/quote]All very well pointing out common sense to southy but his hands are tied by TUSC policy: - “When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts .. and demand that the government makes up the shortfall.” “Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.” You see, TUSC is just a slogan - “No Cuts”. I have asked him on numerous occasions how he will pay the wages of teachers, social workers, dustmen, etc. when the money runs out; but despite an awful lot of irrelevant waffle, he has failed to offer any practical solution.[/p][/quote]But you can not lead free your just another one that follows.[/p][/quote].. coming from a brainwashed Trotskyist that's a bit rich. You have been lead, blindly, down theoretically utopian cul-de-sacs for decades; but, despite politically achieving absolutely nothing, you still can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.[/p][/quote]Theres trading with them and theres letting them walk all over you, As a Socialist I know we do not need a union of nations to be able to trade (i know i do not have to explan to you to much about what Socialism really is and how much false probaganda there is about Socialism). This government is a lot weaker than the Thatcher Government and it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down, Do the real Socialist have to show you again how it is done and force a change in heart or make them to scared to do any thing, if so then its time for Labour to join the Torys as your policy is not much different implent cuts with out a fight. This country is not broke, its a case the money is going in the wrong direction, and not fighting the national government is allowing them to carry on diverting tax payers money to the wealthy.[/p][/quote].. 'it took the Socialist to show how to bring that government down' - gosh, delusions of grandeur as well. Excuse me, but which government was this? Let's see, Heseltine brought Thatcher’s reign to an end and then Major ruled for another 7 years. They were all Tories, weren't they? So where do these socialists bringing down a government fit in?[/p][/quote]It was the Anti-Poll Tax revolt that brought her down, which was started by handfull of Socialist Party members in a cafe in Glasglow that handful turned to 18 million people, it force Tory party members to get Thatcher removed, lead by Heseltine because they knew to well if they did not the people would of removed them from office, Major endded up inplace of Thatcher and the government to scared to act for the remaining 7 years, it was the Socialist that force the change in the Tory office.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no. It wasn't 'the Socialist that force the change', it was people from the left, the centre and the right that forced the change. That a few socialists may have started a petition in a Glasgow cafe did not alter the fact the Poll Tax was unfair and disliked by the majority right across the political spectrum. Heseltine stuck the knife in not because of you Trotskyists but because the nation as a whole disliked the Poll Tax, including a majority of Tories.[/p][/quote]and with out the few Socialist Party members getting it started and bring people together and organising it and controlling it, is why it work, it was more than a petition, it was organising people to attend rallys, demos and meetings it was the whole works, though out the whole UK Socialist Party Network. Heseitine stuck the knife in because of the anti poll tax and its 18 million followers, it was at the stage where the Queen could of step in and disolve government and going to the people forcing a general election, all the Torys with wealth who made big gains out of Thatcher did not want to see her gone, and is why Thatcher came second in the first round of votes to have her removed, it took 3 rounds in votes and Thatcher came second in the final round also, so where did the majority of torys dislike it, they only voted for Major in the end was because people would remember and would of had them removed as an MP. the Majority of Torys was all for the Poll Tax they voted it in, and only had a change mind and not heart because of 18 million people, and it was not just Heseltine that stuck the knife in it was a number of the Tory party did, (thats why is known as the night of the long knifes) for fear of losing losing power in Government and at the next election.[/p][/quote].. you just make it up as you go along, don't you southy? Thatcher came first in the initial 1990 leadership election, but not with sufficient votes to be elected. She was persuaded, because of this, to stand down at this stage. The second vote saw Major succeed when Hestletine withdrew and made a third ballot unnecessary. Your command of history is atrocious. The Poll Tax defeat was NOT due to the efforts of your mob, even if you did have a very minor role in the whole campaign. Stop swallowing your own propaganda.[/p][/quote]Heseltine, Thatcher and Major made though to the Second round, Heseltine drop out because he had the lest amount of votes who all rallied behind Major and giving him more than the 50% of votes that was required in the final round. minor lol your a joke free, lol minor they was the main and major players in the Anti poll tax revolt, it was the Socialist Party and there network that organised it all, you really do not under stand any from of politics do you.[/p][/quote]VOTE 1. Thatcher 204 – 54.8%. Heseltine 152 – 40.9%. Abstentions 16 – 4.3%. Thatcher failed to achieve a lead over Heseltine that comprised at least 15% of all Conservative MPs. So: - VOTE 2. Major 185 – 49.7%. Heseltine 131 – 35.2%. Hurd 56 – 15.1%. Third ballot required, but Heseltine withdraws leaving Major as leader. I don’t know where you get your data from – it must be that 90% of the internet that you tell us is always wrong.[/p][/quote]If Thatcher won the first round 54.8% of the votes there would of been no second round, she would of remain leader. do a lot more research, the rule at the time for Tory party leadership was 51% of the votes, If none got above 50% of the votes then it would go into another round, with the lowest 1% dropping out of the race. And it was not just Tory MP's that Voted in the First round, every branch of Tory party committee members voted in the first round, which included Tory party Councillors. There was 3 votes in all not 2.[/p][/quote].. EVERY bit of what you say is wrong. Added to my 2013 southy's bloomers list. Only half way through January and already 4 entries. Now, how about answering Stephen J?[/p][/quote]Look, I can settle this right here and now: Peter - you are talking complete utter cack. I'm amazed you don't get paid for it.[/p][/quote]personally I don't know what this articles got to do with Maggie being stabbed in the back by Heseltine & John Major ? Southy The Labour Party has said it's listened to the people after Browns Guff on immigration but have they ? Milliband is still pro EU? Milliband & Ed Balls want to resurrect a failure by making people work in any job if they've been unemployed for two years or more or not pay or cut their social payments? so how do they feed the kids? before they tried this & they would start on the Monday & by the end of the week they either walked out or were sacked so they bought in the 90 day ruling. unless kids are going to be put into care to get these people to see there's no alternative to working it won't work? loosehead

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree