Anger as new £135K city role ‘misses out education’

Daily Echo: Clive Webster Clive Webster

HE is the man who has overseen Southampton’s meteoric rise up the school league tables.

Under Clive Webster, more 11-year-olds are passing vital tests in English and maths than ever before and GCSE results have gone from rock bottom to close to the national average.

Yet today the city’s head of children’s services is fighting for his job after council chiefs decided to merge it with another role.

The new £135,000-a-year role is being created through the merger of the adult services job being vacated by Margaret Geary, who took over on a temporary, part-time basis last year, and the children’s services post held by Mr Webster.

The job, which will be directly responsible to the council’s chief executive and in charge of an annual budget of up to £200m, was created by the former Tory administration as a way of saving cash.

It is believed Mr Webster is among the applicants for the new post but faces competition from outside of the council to continue in his current post.

The successful candidate will oversee the council’s important work with the most vulnerable people in society – both children and adults.

But Southampton’s opposition leaders have called for the recruitment process to be scrapped – because neither education nor schools were mentioned in the job advertisement.

Although Labour bosses insist potential recruits have been told the job will include overseeing children’s learning, Tory leaders say they are worried people with the right experience won’t have come forward in the first place.

Conservative group deputy leader and education spokesman, Councillor Jeremy Moulton said: “We’ve got a major problem.

“Education is being treated as a second-class citizen.

“You cannot ask someone to apply for a job and not be sure what it is. It’s ridiculous.”

The advert for the new job of “Director, People” said it |is an “exciting and challenging” role covering “adults’, children’s, housing and public health services”.

Cllr Moulton said: “That essentially misses out education. If you do want education in you might want people with good education skills and if you’re not telling people that, you might not get the right candidate for the job.

“It seems they’re washing their hands of it now we’ve got academies and free schools.

“But the strategic role for education is probably even more important where schools have independence.

“The whole process should be scrapped.

“We could continue with the set-up we’ve got at the moment, get the new chief executive in post because that’s the most appropriate action, and see what they favour.”

Council leader Councillor Richard Williams said education was important, and although he was “surprised” it wasn’t mentioned in the advert, was satisfied it has formed part of the recruitment process.

He said: “If we don’t feel the candidates are suitable we won’t appoint.

“I was somewhat surprised that detail wasn’t reflected. Certainly, we were assured by the recruitment consultants that the trawl they have done – it’s not just a generic advert, there was some headhunting done – included education.

“We have got people with education backgrounds and at least one candidate who is education-specific more than anything else.”

Mr Webster was unavailable for comment.

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:42am Thu 31 Jan 13

nedscrumpo says...

He sent an email to staff yesterday to say he had not been appointed.
He sent an email to staff yesterday to say he had not been appointed. nedscrumpo
  • Score: 1

7:51am Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea! loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:52am Thu 31 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

8:52am Thu 31 Jan 13

Datarater says...

The want a Labour place man. Now watch education deteriorate.
The want a Labour place man. Now watch education deteriorate. Datarater
  • Score: 0

9:01am Thu 31 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

Datarater wrote:
The want a Labour place man. Now watch education deteriorate.
The new role was created by the last administration,,,,th
e Tories nothing to do with Labour,,,,as an employer SCC has to observe employment law the same as any other employer,,regardless of political persuasions.
[quote][p][bold]Datarater[/bold] wrote: The want a Labour place man. Now watch education deteriorate.[/p][/quote]The new role was created by the last administration,,,,th e Tories nothing to do with Labour,,,,as an employer SCC has to observe employment law the same as any other employer,,regardless of political persuasions. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

9:44am Thu 31 Jan 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

I applaud the move to fewer high paid Directors in the City Council's structure. With so much of the delivery of education, social care and children's services now externalised, devolved or deleted altogether due to government cuts, it makes no sense for a City the size of Southampton to have three Council Executive Directors on £120,000+ salaries.

This is an imaginative solution which can also help ensure a change in the 'silo' mentality culture between different Council departments and professional lobbies.

I hope the City Council is able to recruit the right person to fulfil this new role. I also hope that - unlike so many senior managers in the past (with the honourable exception of Brad Roynon) - they will live in our City.
I applaud the move to fewer high paid Directors in the City Council's structure. With so much of the delivery of education, social care and children's services now externalised, devolved or deleted altogether due to government cuts, it makes no sense for a City the size of Southampton to have three Council Executive Directors on £120,000+ salaries. This is an imaginative solution which can also help ensure a change in the 'silo' mentality culture between different Council departments and professional lobbies. I hope the City Council is able to recruit the right person to fulfil this new role. I also hope that - unlike so many senior managers in the past (with the honourable exception of Brad Roynon) - they will live in our City. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

9:55am Thu 31 Jan 13

aldermoorboy says...

What a mess, vote Tory in 2014 for a good council.
What a mess, vote Tory in 2014 for a good council. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

9:58am Thu 31 Jan 13

bigal007 says...

it was the torys that left the council in this mess i think no one should be on that sort of money the council should be a southampton peoples council
it was the torys that left the council in this mess i think no one should be on that sort of money the council should be a southampton peoples council bigal007
  • Score: 0

10:02am Thu 31 Jan 13

Whataloadofoldrubbish says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
What a mess, vote Tory in 2014 for a good council.
The Tories created the mess in the first place, yet again another Tory voter lacking the ability to read?
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: What a mess, vote Tory in 2014 for a good council.[/p][/quote]The Tories created the mess in the first place, yet again another Tory voter lacking the ability to read? Whataloadofoldrubbish
  • Score: 0

10:13am Thu 31 Jan 13

Linesman says...

According to the report, the situation was set up by the previous Tory opposition, but now that it is being implemented, they are against it.

Does this mean that the Tories are now saying that they got it wrong when they were in power, or are they, as usual, just playing politics?
According to the report, the situation was set up by the previous Tory opposition, but now that it is being implemented, they are against it. Does this mean that the Tories are now saying that they got it wrong when they were in power, or are they, as usual, just playing politics? Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:14am Thu 31 Jan 13

For pity sake says...

Dear Outside of the Box,
Why are you a serial comma user?
Do you think it is correct? It isn't.
Do you think it is clever? It isn't.
Do you think it makes your comments stand out? Only in a bad way.
This is an article about education - please don't try to reinvent the rules of punctuation.
Dear Outside of the Box, Why are you a serial comma user? Do you think it is correct? It isn't. Do you think it is clever? It isn't. Do you think it makes your comments stand out? Only in a bad way. This is an article about education - please don't try to reinvent the rules of punctuation. For pity sake
  • Score: 0

10:20am Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

Yes the Tories put to roles into one but the reason they're upset is the fact this guy has turned education around so it makes sense he gets offered the post first.
If I recollect correctly internal applicants are seen first & nine out of ten get the post.
Surely with what this guy has done it would be absolutely crazy to get rid of him?
I don't care who's in power this guy should be at least given a trial run at it before considering to let him go as that's what will happen isn't it?
Yes the Tories put to roles into one but the reason they're upset is the fact this guy has turned education around so it makes sense he gets offered the post first. If I recollect correctly internal applicants are seen first & nine out of ten get the post. Surely with what this guy has done it would be absolutely crazy to get rid of him? I don't care who's in power this guy should be at least given a trial run at it before considering to let him go as that's what will happen isn't it? loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:22am Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
According to the report, the situation was set up by the previous Tory opposition, but now that it is being implemented, they are against it.

Does this mean that the Tories are now saying that they got it wrong when they were in power, or are they, as usual, just playing politics?
I wonder if the amalgamation of the Islands management services & our had gone ahead if we'd be even reading this article?
Just remember it was Cllr Williams who scrapped that deal so sorry you can't blame the tories for setting up a deal scrapping a post when Labours stepped in & altered it can you?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: According to the report, the situation was set up by the previous Tory opposition, but now that it is being implemented, they are against it. Does this mean that the Tories are now saying that they got it wrong when they were in power, or are they, as usual, just playing politics?[/p][/quote]I wonder if the amalgamation of the Islands management services & our had gone ahead if we'd be even reading this article? Just remember it was Cllr Williams who scrapped that deal so sorry you can't blame the tories for setting up a deal scrapping a post when Labours stepped in & altered it can you? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:15am Thu 31 Jan 13

George4th says...

Are this council brain dead? All of the major decisions they've had to make so far, they screw up! It happened from day one!
>
Under previous Labour councils, our Southampton Education went BACKWARDS!

Now Labour get rid of a guy who has been instrumental in turning education in Southampton around? !

Are these councillors nuts?!

(It has to be politically motivated which is wrong and an injustice to the children of this City.

Thankfully, my children are no longer at school in Southampton!
Are this council brain dead? All of the major decisions they've had to make so far, they screw up! It happened from day one! > Under previous Labour councils, our Southampton Education went BACKWARDS! Now Labour get rid of a guy who has been instrumental in turning education in Southampton around? ! Are these councillors nuts?! (It has to be politically motivated which is wrong and an injustice to the children of this City. Thankfully, my children are no longer at school in Southampton! George4th
  • Score: 0

11:18am Thu 31 Jan 13

southy says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job.
The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage.
There is no need for these over paid jobs
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored[/p][/quote]When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job. The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage. There is no need for these over paid jobs southy
  • Score: 0

11:24am Thu 31 Jan 13

southy says...

Whataloadofoldrubbis
h
wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
What a mess, vote Tory in 2014 for a good council.
The Tories created the mess in the first place, yet again another Tory voter lacking the ability to read?
Can I point out to aldermoorboy, that the Torys can not gain control of the council till 2016 at the earliest. they lost to many seats in 2012
[quote][p][bold]Whataloadofoldrubbis h[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: What a mess, vote Tory in 2014 for a good council.[/p][/quote]The Tories created the mess in the first place, yet again another Tory voter lacking the ability to read?[/p][/quote]Can I point out to aldermoorboy, that the Torys can not gain control of the council till 2016 at the earliest. they lost to many seats in 2012 southy
  • Score: 0

11:30am Thu 31 Jan 13

George4th says...

southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job.
The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage.
There is no need for these over paid jobs
Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you.

If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage!

You have no idea whatsoever!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored[/p][/quote]When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job. The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage. There is no need for these over paid jobs[/p][/quote]Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you. If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage! You have no idea whatsoever! George4th
  • Score: 0

11:44am Thu 31 Jan 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

loosehead wrote:
Yes the Tories put to roles into one but the reason they're upset is the fact this guy has turned education around so it makes sense he gets offered the post first.
If I recollect correctly internal applicants are seen first & nine out of ten get the post.
Surely with what this guy has done it would be absolutely crazy to get rid of him?
I don't care who's in power this guy should be at least given a trial run at it before considering to let him go as that's what will happen isn't it?
Hmmmm! I'm not sure that the previous administration's leading lights and fading stars (Royston Smith, Jeremy Moulton, Peter Baillie etc.) would agree with you there. After all they set in train a very costly Directorate restructuring exercise in 2011 with the primary aim of getting rid of Directors they didn't like or couldn't control.

The cost of this bungling is conservatively (sic) reckoned to be in excess of £1million
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Yes the Tories put to roles into one but the reason they're upset is the fact this guy has turned education around so it makes sense he gets offered the post first. If I recollect correctly internal applicants are seen first & nine out of ten get the post. Surely with what this guy has done it would be absolutely crazy to get rid of him? I don't care who's in power this guy should be at least given a trial run at it before considering to let him go as that's what will happen isn't it?[/p][/quote]Hmmmm! I'm not sure that the previous administration's leading lights and fading stars (Royston Smith, Jeremy Moulton, Peter Baillie etc.) would agree with you there. After all they set in train a very costly Directorate restructuring exercise in 2011 with the primary aim of getting rid of Directors they didn't like or couldn't control. The cost of this bungling is conservatively (sic) reckoned to be in excess of £1million FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Thu 31 Jan 13

southy says...

George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job.
The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage.
There is no need for these over paid jobs
Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you.

If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage!

You have no idea whatsoever!
Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored[/p][/quote]When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job. The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage. There is no need for these over paid jobs[/p][/quote]Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you. If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage! You have no idea whatsoever![/p][/quote]Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax. southy
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Thu 31 Jan 13

George4th says...

southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job.
The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage.
There is no need for these over paid jobs
Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you.

If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage!

You have no idea whatsoever!
Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.
As I said, you have no idea whatsoever..........
..
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored[/p][/quote]When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job. The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage. There is no need for these over paid jobs[/p][/quote]Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you. If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage! You have no idea whatsoever![/p][/quote]Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.[/p][/quote]As I said, you have no idea whatsoever.......... .. George4th
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Thu 31 Jan 13

southy says...

George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job.
The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage.
There is no need for these over paid jobs
Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you.

If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage!

You have no idea whatsoever!
Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.
As I said, you have no idea whatsoever..........

..
George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored[/p][/quote]When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job. The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage. There is no need for these over paid jobs[/p][/quote]Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you. If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage! You have no idea whatsoever![/p][/quote]Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.[/p][/quote]As I said, you have no idea whatsoever.......... ..[/p][/quote]George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in southy
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Thu 31 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job.
The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage.
There is no need for these over paid jobs
Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you.

If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage!

You have no idea whatsoever!
Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.
As I said, you have no idea whatsoever..........


..
George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in
.. no southy, you got yourself involved in Trotskyism, which is fantasy politics.

You have demonstrated conclusively you have little idea how local government works and in particular how it is financed.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored[/p][/quote]When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job. The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage. There is no need for these over paid jobs[/p][/quote]Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you. If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage! You have no idea whatsoever![/p][/quote]Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.[/p][/quote]As I said, you have no idea whatsoever.......... ..[/p][/quote]George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in[/p][/quote].. no southy, you got yourself involved in Trotskyism, which is fantasy politics. You have demonstrated conclusively you have little idea how local government works and in particular how it is financed. freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Thu 31 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job.
The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage.
There is no need for these over paid jobs
Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you.

If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage!

You have no idea whatsoever!
Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.
As I said, you have no idea whatsoever..........



..
George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in
.. no southy, you got yourself involved in Trotskyism, which is fantasy politics.

You have demonstrated conclusively you have little idea how local government works and in particular how it is financed.
Says he who do not even know the difference in politics, Free you would not know what Trotskism is all about even if it was to bite you on the butt
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored[/p][/quote]When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job. The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage. There is no need for these over paid jobs[/p][/quote]Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you. If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage! You have no idea whatsoever![/p][/quote]Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.[/p][/quote]As I said, you have no idea whatsoever.......... ..[/p][/quote]George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in[/p][/quote].. no southy, you got yourself involved in Trotskyism, which is fantasy politics. You have demonstrated conclusively you have little idea how local government works and in particular how it is financed.[/p][/quote]Says he who do not even know the difference in politics, Free you would not know what Trotskism is all about even if it was to bite you on the butt southy
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Thu 31 Jan 13

George4th says...

Moving on........

The operative word in all of this is "Education"

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Education failing under the previous Labour Councils? Isn't Education the lifeblood of any modern society? The basis of our future?
Now Southampton City have turned Education around the new (incompetent) Labour council wants to oust the very man who led the turnaround!!

What kind of madcap decision is that?!!
Moving on........ The operative word in all of this is "Education" Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Education failing under the previous Labour Councils? Isn't Education the lifeblood of any modern society? The basis of our future? Now Southampton City have turned Education around the new (incompetent) Labour council wants to oust the very man who led the turnaround!! What kind of madcap decision is that?!! George4th
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Thu 31 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job.
The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage.
There is no need for these over paid jobs
Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you.

If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage!

You have no idea whatsoever!
Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.
As I said, you have no idea whatsoever..........




..
George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in
.. no southy, you got yourself involved in Trotskyism, which is fantasy politics.

You have demonstrated conclusively you have little idea how local government works and in particular how it is financed.
Says he who do not even know the difference in politics, Free you would not know what Trotskism is all about even if it was to bite you on the butt
.. 'Says he who do not even know the difference in politics' - what on earth does that mean? 'The difference'??.

I certainly know the difference between political parties who can administer the finances of local government despite the savage cuts inflicted by central government; and unelectable Trotskyists who only have a single slogan, ‘No Cuts’, and are incapable of letting the electorate know how this would be fiscally viable.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored[/p][/quote]When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job. The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage. There is no need for these over paid jobs[/p][/quote]Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you. If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage! You have no idea whatsoever![/p][/quote]Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.[/p][/quote]As I said, you have no idea whatsoever.......... ..[/p][/quote]George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in[/p][/quote].. no southy, you got yourself involved in Trotskyism, which is fantasy politics. You have demonstrated conclusively you have little idea how local government works and in particular how it is financed.[/p][/quote]Says he who do not even know the difference in politics, Free you would not know what Trotskism is all about even if it was to bite you on the butt[/p][/quote].. 'Says he who do not even know the difference in politics' - what on earth does that mean? 'The difference'??. I certainly know the difference between political parties who can administer the finances of local government despite the savage cuts inflicted by central government; and unelectable Trotskyists who only have a single slogan, ‘No Cuts’, and are incapable of letting the electorate know how this would be fiscally viable. freefinker
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Yes the Tories put to roles into one but the reason they're upset is the fact this guy has turned education around so it makes sense he gets offered the post first.
If I recollect correctly internal applicants are seen first & nine out of ten get the post.
Surely with what this guy has done it would be absolutely crazy to get rid of him?
I don't care who's in power this guy should be at least given a trial run at it before considering to let him go as that's what will happen isn't it?
Hmmmm! I'm not sure that the previous administration's leading lights and fading stars (Royston Smith, Jeremy Moulton, Peter Baillie etc.) would agree with you there. After all they set in train a very costly Directorate restructuring exercise in 2011 with the primary aim of getting rid of Directors they didn't like or couldn't control.

The cost of this bungling is conservatively (sic) reckoned to be in excess of £1million
Sorry they did the restructuring to get ready for the amalgamation of managerial posts with the Isle of Wight council & they did the same.
Williams stopped that happening & the milli9ons it would have saved both councils so why make it out to be jobs for the boys?
in the strikes weren't Labour & Union supporters saying get rid of management first so when they did it's jobs for yes men?
come on you can't have it both ways
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Yes the Tories put to roles into one but the reason they're upset is the fact this guy has turned education around so it makes sense he gets offered the post first. If I recollect correctly internal applicants are seen first & nine out of ten get the post. Surely with what this guy has done it would be absolutely crazy to get rid of him? I don't care who's in power this guy should be at least given a trial run at it before considering to let him go as that's what will happen isn't it?[/p][/quote]Hmmmm! I'm not sure that the previous administration's leading lights and fading stars (Royston Smith, Jeremy Moulton, Peter Baillie etc.) would agree with you there. After all they set in train a very costly Directorate restructuring exercise in 2011 with the primary aim of getting rid of Directors they didn't like or couldn't control. The cost of this bungling is conservatively (sic) reckoned to be in excess of £1million[/p][/quote]Sorry they did the restructuring to get ready for the amalgamation of managerial posts with the Isle of Wight council & they did the same. Williams stopped that happening & the milli9ons it would have saved both councils so why make it out to be jobs for the boys? in the strikes weren't Labour & Union supporters saying get rid of management first so when they did it's jobs for yes men? come on you can't have it both ways loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job.
The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage.
There is no need for these over paid jobs
Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you.

If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage!

You have no idea whatsoever!
Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.
As I said, you have no idea whatsoever..........


..
George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in
Everyone is "involved" in politics; political awareness is not reserved only to party political activists. Your assertion that there are those on the outside who don't understand and those on the inside who do has huge implications for your wider political outlook. Not only is it breathtakingly arrogant, it's a short step from that to wanting to find ways to impose your 'enlightened' views onto the non-believers on the 'outside'.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored[/p][/quote]When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job. The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage. There is no need for these over paid jobs[/p][/quote]Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you. If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage! You have no idea whatsoever![/p][/quote]Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.[/p][/quote]As I said, you have no idea whatsoever.......... ..[/p][/quote]George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in[/p][/quote]Everyone is "involved" in politics; political awareness is not reserved only to party political activists. Your assertion that there are those on the outside who don't understand and those on the inside who do has huge implications for your wider political outlook. Not only is it breathtakingly arrogant, it's a short step from that to wanting to find ways to impose your 'enlightened' views onto the non-believers on the 'outside'. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Thu 31 Jan 13

madmandy says...

This man does care about the children education and worked hard for them
. Southampton will be making a big mistake losing him .who make these silly mistakes ,do they care ?
This man does care about the children education and worked hard for them . Southampton will be making a big mistake losing him .who make these silly mistakes ,do they care ? madmandy
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Thu 31 Jan 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

Question. Which Director at the City Council came up with the bright idea of scrapping the City's youth service in its entirity in order to protect school budgets and prop up a vastly overspent child protection service?
Question. Which Director at the City Council came up with the bright idea of scrapping the City's youth service in its entirity in order to protect school budgets and prop up a vastly overspent child protection service? FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Thu 31 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Question. Which Director at the City Council came up with the bright idea of scrapping the City's youth service in its entirity in order to protect school budgets and prop up a vastly overspent child protection service?
Put your question to the Council, I'm guessing they won't answer it on here?

The only answer you may get is Southy making it up on the hoof!
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Question. Which Director at the City Council came up with the bright idea of scrapping the City's youth service in its entirity in order to protect school budgets and prop up a vastly overspent child protection service?[/p][/quote]Put your question to the Council, I'm guessing they won't answer it on here? The only answer you may get is Southy making it up on the hoof! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Question. Which Director at the City Council came up with the bright idea of scrapping the City's youth service in its entirity in order to protect school budgets and prop up a vastly overspent child protection service?
Question isn't the council by law required to as you put it prop up child protection services?
Foyes if you actually come from that designation do you remember Fred Goaters youth club/
it was at Foundry Lane school once a week & he never got paid to run it he did it voluntary.
there are sports clubs crying out for youth team players/rowers/swimm
ers/cyclists you name it they need the youth but why go & do sport when you can hang?
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Question. Which Director at the City Council came up with the bright idea of scrapping the City's youth service in its entirity in order to protect school budgets and prop up a vastly overspent child protection service?[/p][/quote]Question isn't the council by law required to as you put it prop up child protection services? Foyes if you actually come from that designation do you remember Fred Goaters youth club/ it was at Foundry Lane school once a week & he never got paid to run it he did it voluntary. there are sports clubs crying out for youth team players/rowers/swimm ers/cyclists you name it they need the youth but why go & do sport when you can hang? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Question. Which Director at the City Council came up with the bright idea of scrapping the City's youth service in its entirity in order to protect school budgets and prop up a vastly overspent child protection service?
Put your question to the Council, I'm guessing they won't answer it on here?

The only answer you may get is Southy making it up on the hoof!
I answered as I remembered that the Tory council had to cut certain services to build up Social workers & child protection officers numbers as a requirement by law
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Question. Which Director at the City Council came up with the bright idea of scrapping the City's youth service in its entirity in order to protect school budgets and prop up a vastly overspent child protection service?[/p][/quote]Put your question to the Council, I'm guessing they won't answer it on here? The only answer you may get is Southy making it up on the hoof![/p][/quote]I answered as I remembered that the Tory council had to cut certain services to build up Social workers & child protection officers numbers as a requirement by law loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:07am Fri 1 Feb 13

nedscrumpo says...

George4th wrote:
Moving on........

The operative word in all of this is "Education"

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Education failing under the previous Labour Councils? Isn't Education the lifeblood of any modern society? The basis of our future?
Now Southampton City have turned Education around the new (incompetent) Labour council wants to oust the very man who led the turnaround!!

What kind of madcap decision is that?!!
He was also responsible for social care and that has been bouncing along the bottom for years. 50% performance isn't good enough.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Moving on........ The operative word in all of this is "Education" Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Education failing under the previous Labour Councils? Isn't Education the lifeblood of any modern society? The basis of our future? Now Southampton City have turned Education around the new (incompetent) Labour council wants to oust the very man who led the turnaround!! What kind of madcap decision is that?!![/p][/quote]He was also responsible for social care and that has been bouncing along the bottom for years. 50% performance isn't good enough. nedscrumpo
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Mon 4 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over?
or doesn't Labour think he's good enough?
Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea!
Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one

You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored
When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job.
The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage.
There is no need for these over paid jobs
Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you.

If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage!

You have no idea whatsoever!
Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.
As I said, you have no idea whatsoever..........




..
George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in
.. no southy, you got yourself involved in Trotskyism, which is fantasy politics.

You have demonstrated conclusively you have little idea how local government works and in particular how it is financed.
Says he who do not even know the difference in politics, Free you would not know what Trotskism is all about even if it was to bite you on the butt
Trotsky was an anti-democratic murderer, like all his other Bolshevik friends. They were no different from the Tsar, as they used the proletariat as a disposable commodity, with zero value for human rights or dignity.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If this guy is that good why advertise why not just say we're merging both posts & we'd like you to take over? or doesn't Labour think he's good enough? Why is it so much? if it's a new post why not lower it to say £80,000 a year & use the £55,000 to pay for youth leaders? this is just an idea![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the Labour party,,,all to do with employment law,,,plain and simply,,,,same as the Tories did when they recruited a new Chief Executive when the Deputy Chief Executive could have stepped up,,,,,no political points for you to score on this one You wouldn't get the quality of candidate for a salary of £80k,,,,,you pay for the knowledge skills or experience,,no one would apply at that rate,,,,the same as when the Tories appointed a new Chief Executive when Brad Roynon left the council,,,it cost more for the new,,,,again no political points o be scored[/p][/quote]When Thatcher said if you want the best then you must pay for the best, what she failed to tell people is that you only get the greedy ones for the job, but it don't mean they are any good at the job. The real good ones that love doing the job would do what Loose is saying take a lower wage, the best at the job and enjoys doing that job, will take a lower wage. There is no need for these over paid jobs[/p][/quote]Southy, go along to the Unions and tell them your theory - see what expletives are thrown at you. Or go along to the AGMs of Companies and voice your views and see what expletives get thrown at you. If you employ your theory then you need to take away the minimum wage! You have no idea whatsoever![/p][/quote]Is the Public sector part of the Private sector now, come on open your mind up and start thinking, when Thatcher said that it was aimed at the public sector, what the private sector do is up to them till they avoid paying full tax.[/p][/quote]As I said, you have no idea whatsoever.......... ..[/p][/quote]George4th I got myself involved in politics have you, these with in have a lot better idea than those standing on the out side trying to look in[/p][/quote].. no southy, you got yourself involved in Trotskyism, which is fantasy politics. You have demonstrated conclusively you have little idea how local government works and in particular how it is financed.[/p][/quote]Says he who do not even know the difference in politics, Free you would not know what Trotskism is all about even if it was to bite you on the butt[/p][/quote]Trotsky was an anti-democratic murderer, like all his other Bolshevik friends. They were no different from the Tsar, as they used the proletariat as a disposable commodity, with zero value for human rights or dignity. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

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