Council chief defends putting aside £500K for leader's projects (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Explanations demanded on Labour-run authority’s splitting of £5.8m windfall fund
12:20pm Thursday 31st January 2013 in News
By Julian Robinson, Eastleigh Chief Reporter
Council leader Richard Williams
The man in charge of Southampton City Council has been forced to defend plans to spend £500,000 of a Government windfall.
The huge lump sum has been earmarked for the council leader’s “Getting Our Economy Moving” fund for Councillor Richard Williams to support creative industries, energy-saving initiatives, apprenticeships and internships.
It comes after the Labour-run authority learned it was receiving £5.8m in a one-off Westminster windfall and set about deciding how the money should be spent.
Tory opponents have called for a full explanation of the proposed leader’s fund, which comes as the council bids to slash £20m from its budget in the city’s worst cuts ever.
The Conservative group’s finance spokesman Cllr John Hannides said: “I think all the groups seeing increases in charges will want to make sure that every penny is spent wisely and for the benefit of everyone in the city. They have got reason to expect an explanation as to how this money is going to be used.
“I think any amount of money does require clear explanation as to its intended use – especially at this time when we are seeing reductions in services that people rely on.”
Last night Cllr Williams said a large proportion of the £500,000 would be spent on bringing forward a scheme with energy companies.
Called the Energy Company Obligation, it is designed to dramatically cut fuel bills for homes and create local jobs in fitting better insulation and solar panels. He said: “It is one of our priorities to get the economy moving and the green industry is one of the few areas that are growing.”
As reported, the council also wants to use part of the £5.8m windfall to reduce controversial cuts to library hours. Funding will also be put back into some youth services until they can run independently.
The authority has also come under fire for setting aside £40,000 to keep the mayor’s chauffeured car.
Meanwhile, £500,000 has been earmarked as a safeguard in case the council’s annual Government handout is worse next year.
A “transition fund” of £1m has also been set aside for major changes to children’s social services and reducing the number of city youngsters ending up in care.
Comments(43)
Red1918
says...
12:45pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Absolutely right, Southy. This is nothing more than a massive slush fund for the Leader to spend on any vanity project that catches his imagination. It would not be so bad if he were not so utterly inept, so the chances of it being value for money are around zero
Also on the subject of cuts, the salt bins in my area were, understandably, emptied during the recent cold spell by local residents doing a bit of self help. It is just as well the weather has turned milder instead of another freeze because we are still waiting for SCC to refill them. Still I guess the New Labour Group has higher priorities like finding the money to save the Mayoral Car from the axe, rather than addressing an urgent matter of public safety.
Also on the subject of cuts, the salt bins in my area were, understandably, emptied during the recent cold spell by local residents doing a bit of self help. It is just as well the weather has turned milder instead of another freeze because we are still waiting for SCC to refill them. Still I guess the New Labour Group has higher priorities like finding the money to save the Mayoral Car from the axe, rather than addressing an urgent matter of public safety.
oldboy67
says...
12:45pm Thu 31 Jan 13
he will not need to buy southy any laxitive that for sure
freefinker
says...
1:12pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Headline - ‘Council chief defends putting aside £500K for leader's projects.’
Response – Well, he would; wouldn’t he? (with thanks to Mandy Rice-Davies)
Response – Well, he would; wouldn’t he? (with thanks to Mandy Rice-Davies)
George4th
says...
1:21pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Williams and his council are a busted flush...............
..........
..........
Shoong
says...
1:26pm Thu 31 Jan 13
southy wrote:Yeh, because that's what you would do isn't it?
All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.
Of course you would...
Do Socialists pay more for champagne to clear the conscious?
Maine Lobster
says...
1:27pm Thu 31 Jan 13
George4th wrote:Not as busted as Smith's!
Williams and his council are a busted flush............... ..........
George4th
says...
1:37pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Maine Lobster wrote:Williams and his cronies have been an unmitigated disaster! They have gone beyond the word "incompetent"!
George4th wrote:Not as busted as Smith's!
Williams and his council are a busted flush............... ..........
Williams and his cronies only got in because their best mates in the Unions plotted and schemed in the most underhand way and people like you support this kind of behaviour? Shame on you...........
dunenuf
says...
1:37pm Thu 31 Jan 13
As ever money to slush around with no real end point - just flash some cash to City College + Solent for students to look like they have a real job. Rather than support real education improvements leading to real work andsolid futures. How about the merging Education Chiefs job - be serious and make a lasting difference not moving deckchairs on this Titanic loving council!!
southy
says...
2:08pm Thu 31 Jan 13
George4th wrote:Don't you think the Tory Cronies plotted and schemed in the most underhand way to try and keep the Torys in
Maine Lobster wrote:Williams and his cronies have been an unmitigated disaster! They have gone beyond the word "incompetent"!
George4th wrote:Not as busted as Smith's!
Williams and his council are a busted flush............... ..........
Williams and his cronies only got in because their best mates in the Unions plotted and schemed in the most underhand way and people like you support this kind of behaviour? Shame on you...........
FoysCornerBoy
says...
2:20pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
George4th
says...
3:11pm Thu 31 Jan 13
FoysCornerBoy wrote:The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
freefinker
says...
3:26pm Thu 31 Jan 13
George4th wrote:.. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you.
FoysCornerBoy wrote:The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community.
That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.
George4th
says...
3:39pm Thu 31 Jan 13
freefinker wrote:My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs!
George4th wrote:.. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you.
FoysCornerBoy wrote:The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community.
That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.
loosehead
says...
3:43pm Thu 31 Jan 13
FoysCornerBoy wrote:I like the idea of the Rugby World Cup.
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
Foyes one way he could help residents ( council) to save money on energy would be to lift the embargo on tenants having Solar panels installed.
If I could afford it I would now rip out my Gas heating & put in the new Electric heating system.
It's been developed to store power in cheap rate hours which is ideal for storing Solar energy.
the heaters then release the heat when you want so if you have Solar Panels it's free heating.
You can lease out the roofs to Solar companies so the Panels & installation is free.
If you've noticed the Tory Party isn't attacking Williams they're just asking him to clarify where the money is being spent
Red1918
says...
4:35pm Thu 31 Jan 13
loosehead wrote:Of course, the Tories are attacking him. They are asking the question because they know he currently does not have a clue what the answer is. He could only parrot the generalitites voiced by FoysCornerBoy, with no costings and no idea what the targets would be or how they would be delivered. ie It is a slush fund. In the meantime the salt bins remain empty, but the Mayoral car has been saved!!!
FoysCornerBoy wrote:I like the idea of the Rugby World Cup.
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
Foyes one way he could help residents ( council) to save money on energy would be to lift the embargo on tenants having Solar panels installed.
If I could afford it I would now rip out my Gas heating & put in the new Electric heating system.
It's been developed to store power in cheap rate hours which is ideal for storing Solar energy.
the heaters then release the heat when you want so if you have Solar Panels it's free heating.
You can lease out the roofs to Solar companies so the Panels & installation is free.
If you've noticed the Tory Party isn't attacking Williams they're just asking him to clarify where the money is being spent
freefinker
says...
4:57pm Thu 31 Jan 13
George4th wrote:.. as I said, 'so incredibly boring'.
freefinker wrote:My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs!
George4th wrote:.. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you.
FoysCornerBoy wrote:The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community.
That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.
loosehead
says...
5:06pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Red1918 wrote:But surely Williams would know what he wanted this money for wouldn't he?
loosehead wrote:Of course, the Tories are attacking him. They are asking the question because they know he currently does not have a clue what the answer is. He could only parrot the generalitites voiced by FoysCornerBoy, with no costings and no idea what the targets would be or how they would be delivered. ie It is a slush fund. In the meantime the salt bins remain empty, but the Mayoral car has been saved!!!
FoysCornerBoy wrote:I like the idea of the Rugby World Cup.
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
Foyes one way he could help residents ( council) to save money on energy would be to lift the embargo on tenants having Solar panels installed.
If I could afford it I would now rip out my Gas heating & put in the new Electric heating system.
It's been developed to store power in cheap rate hours which is ideal for storing Solar energy.
the heaters then release the heat when you want so if you have Solar Panels it's free heating.
You can lease out the roofs to Solar companies so the Panels & installation is free.
If you've noticed the Tory Party isn't attacking Williams they're just asking him to clarify where the money is being spent
where did he get the figure of £500,000 from if he doesn't know what he wants?
is it to pay for a scientific adviser from the same Uni that backed him on fortnightly collections?
i didn't read that in Cllr hannides question though?
bigfella777
says...
5:18pm Thu 31 Jan 13
southy wrote:It is, they are saving jobs in youth services,libraries,c
All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.
reating apprenticeships, create jobs in green industries and keep the mayors chauffeur.
Cant you read, are you thick or something?
George4th
says...
5:54pm Thu 31 Jan 13
freefinker wrote:More like you choosing to bury your head in the sand! (A lot of people did that during the last government and look where we ended up!)
George4th wrote:.. as I said, 'so incredibly boring'.
freefinker wrote:My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs!
George4th wrote:.. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you.
FoysCornerBoy wrote:The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community.
That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.
skin2000
says...
5:58pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Shoong wrote:No
southy wrote:Yeh, because that's what you would do isn't it?
All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.
Of course you would...
Do Socialists pay more for champagne to clear the conscious?
Fatty x Ford Worker
says...
7:00pm Thu 31 Jan 13
I would like a view of your paintings in the vault!
IronLady2010
says...
7:07pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Williams has been faced with a horrible task. Not only does he have to do what is in the best interests of the City residents he also has to ensure he doesn't wind up the Unions as they'll start banging the fear of strike stick.
I have to agree with him that it isn't a good idea to throw all this money at saving jobs as come next years budget he'll still have to make those cuts so it would only be a short term fix and in the meantime we wasted the money.
It appears he has made a choice of balance, where he is putting some of the money into services and holding some back which can be used in the near future for improvements.
I'm no fan of a Labour Council, but I can understand why he is keeping some money back rather than chucking it at a short term solution for job cuts.
I have to agree with him that it isn't a good idea to throw all this money at saving jobs as come next years budget he'll still have to make those cuts so it would only be a short term fix and in the meantime we wasted the money.
It appears he has made a choice of balance, where he is putting some of the money into services and holding some back which can be used in the near future for improvements.
I'm no fan of a Labour Council, but I can understand why he is keeping some money back rather than chucking it at a short term solution for job cuts.
freefinker
says...
7:25pm Thu 31 Jan 13
George4th wrote:.. far from it.
freefinker wrote:More like you choosing to bury your head in the sand! (A lot of people did that during the last government and look where we ended up!)
George4th wrote:.. as I said, 'so incredibly boring'.
freefinker wrote:My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs!
George4th wrote:.. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you.
FoysCornerBoy wrote:The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.
I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.
I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about
Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.
Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community.
That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.
I removed my political blinkers decades ago; the all-round view I now get is so much more satisfying. You should try it; then perhaps your oh-so restricted Blue view will be so much less tunnel-versioned and so much more enlightened.
loosehead
says...
8:10pm Thu 31 Jan 13
IronLady2010 wrote:Ironlady I go to church every Sunday.
Williams has been faced with a horrible task. Not only does he have to do what is in the best interests of the City residents he also has to ensure he doesn't wind up the Unions as they'll start banging the fear of strike stick.
I have to agree with him that it isn't a good idea to throw all this money at saving jobs as come next years budget he'll still have to make those cuts so it would only be a short term fix and in the meantime we wasted the money.
It appears he has made a choice of balance, where he is putting some of the money into services and holding some back which can be used in the near future for improvements.
I'm no fan of a Labour Council, but I can understand why he is keeping some money back rather than chucking it at a short term solution for job cuts.
the churches have been asked if they will help in running certain things( volunteers) as of now they're in discussions & haven't told us the congregation exactly what the council are looking for from the different religious bodies.
so it looks as if no matter how much extra money he gets this won't go to the services he has excluded this time & the others are on borrowed time until he gets the volunteers he needs.
when the Tories said they would get volunteers to run the libraries do you remember the kick up the Labour party & Unions made of it?
please don't be suckered in just remember what his party did & said in opposition & what they promised if elected & look what they're doing now
IronLady2010
says...
8:21pm Thu 31 Jan 13
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.
I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.
On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.
I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.
I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.
Simple :-)
I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.
On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.
I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.
I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.
Simple :-)
loosehead
says...
9:04pm Thu 31 Jan 13
IronLady2010 wrote:He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections?
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.
I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.
On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.
I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.
I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.
Simple :-)
most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea?
I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about
IronLady2010
says...
9:10pm Thu 31 Jan 13
loosehead wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you ;-)
IronLady2010 wrote:He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections?
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.
I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.
On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.
I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.
I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.
Simple :-)
most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea?
I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about
But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen.
I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him!
I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.
loosehead
says...
9:20pm Thu 31 Jan 13
IronLady2010 wrote:We ( you & I ) were saying before the elections that the Unions had to much power yes?
loosehead wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you ;-)
IronLady2010 wrote:He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections?
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.
I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.
On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.
I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.
I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.
Simple :-)
most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea?
I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about
But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen.
I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him!
I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.
Williams used that power for his own ends( to get elected) now he has to repay his benefactors & he's not finding it easy.
if he had come out against the strikes.if he hadn't part payed his benefactors by restoring some of the council workers pay he would be in a far stronger position than he is.
By allowing the Unions to use underhanded tactics to get Labour elected.
by allowing Unions to sit an advise on what the budget was is/was suicide as soon as he tries to do something with out them being consulted we get marches & the Unions crying foul.
I've never met Royston but I can see Williams ending up in exactly the same position as Royston & that is a target of Union hate,
thank you for talking to me( debating) as if I was an intelligent person & not a complete idiot as some do.
I admit I go off the article from time to time but have a nice nights sleep & see/talk to you tommorrow
IronLady2010
says...
9:33pm Thu 31 Jan 13
loosehead wrote:The Unions do have far too much influence when it comes to a Labour Council. So, let's be fair and say yes Williams sucked up to them during his campaign, but also give him credit for standing up to them right now.
IronLady2010 wrote:We ( you & I ) were saying before the elections that the Unions had to much power yes?
loosehead wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you ;-)
IronLady2010 wrote:He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections?
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.
I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.
On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.
I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.
I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.
Simple :-)
most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea?
I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about
But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen.
I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him!
I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.
Williams used that power for his own ends( to get elected) now he has to repay his benefactors & he's not finding it easy.
if he had come out against the strikes.if he hadn't part payed his benefactors by restoring some of the council workers pay he would be in a far stronger position than he is.
By allowing the Unions to use underhanded tactics to get Labour elected.
by allowing Unions to sit an advise on what the budget was is/was suicide as soon as he tries to do something with out them being consulted we get marches & the Unions crying foul.
I've never met Royston but I can see Williams ending up in exactly the same position as Royston & that is a target of Union hate,
thank you for talking to me( debating) as if I was an intelligent person & not a complete idiot as some do.
I admit I go off the article from time to time but have a nice nights sleep & see/talk to you tommorrow
He shouldn't have restored pay, this I agree with as it cost the jobs of others, but hey, that's what he promised the Unions and he don't want them on his back with another round of strikes.
I think Williams is a very clever man, he's working the Unions to his advantage, you see how they don't kick off and call a strike when he pee's them off? Now had Royston been in control the City would be in chaos for making the exact same decisions.
So Williams is infact using the Unions without them even realising it.
loosehead
says...
9:42pm Thu 31 Jan 13
IronLady2010 wrote:Could the reason be why the unions aren't kicking off is because of the name Labour?
loosehead wrote:The Unions do have far too much influence when it comes to a Labour Council. So, let's be fair and say yes Williams sucked up to them during his campaign, but also give him credit for standing up to them right now.
IronLady2010 wrote:We ( you & I ) were saying before the elections that the Unions had to much power yes?
loosehead wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you ;-)
IronLady2010 wrote:He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections?
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.
I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.
On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.
I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.
I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.
Simple :-)
most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea?
I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about
But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen.
I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him!
I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.
Williams used that power for his own ends( to get elected) now he has to repay his benefactors & he's not finding it easy.
if he had come out against the strikes.if he hadn't part payed his benefactors by restoring some of the council workers pay he would be in a far stronger position than he is.
By allowing the Unions to use underhanded tactics to get Labour elected.
by allowing Unions to sit an advise on what the budget was is/was suicide as soon as he tries to do something with out them being consulted we get marches & the Unions crying foul.
I've never met Royston but I can see Williams ending up in exactly the same position as Royston & that is a target of Union hate,
thank you for talking to me( debating) as if I was an intelligent person & not a complete idiot as some do.
I admit I go off the article from time to time but have a nice nights sleep & see/talk to you tommorrow
He shouldn't have restored pay, this I agree with as it cost the jobs of others, but hey, that's what he promised the Unions and he don't want them on his back with another round of strikes.
I think Williams is a very clever man, he's working the Unions to his advantage, you see how they don't kick off and call a strike when he pee's them off? Now had Royston been in control the City would be in chaos for making the exact same decisions.
So Williams is infact using the Unions without them even realising it.
I don't think Royston could have done anything without the Unions kicking off besides becoming a Labour councillor.
I honestly believe the Unions & the poor workers are going to rue the day they didn't accept the Tory deal & went to war on the Tory council
Inform Al
says...
12:57am Fri 1 Feb 13
Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.
IronLady2010
says...
1:21am Fri 1 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:You make such a great point, well done!
Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.
IronLady2010
says...
2:31am Fri 1 Feb 13
8 hours of paperwork, if only Williams could appreciate that, luckily he has a team to do that, which we pay for!
aldermoorboy
says...
6:35am Fri 1 Feb 13
Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
loosehead
says...
8:07am Fri 1 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:Funny I read the article exactly where did you get this information from as there was no complaining in the article?
Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.
Hannides was asking if Williams could be transparent & say how much & to where this money was going wasn't he?
You should watch the Andrew Marr show.Nick Clegg was on there he was asked if he felt the cuts were going to far?
his reply was because of the note found by Labour & the fact they didn't know how bad it was they couldn't stop the harsh cuts implemented by the out going Labour Government.
if they had known exactly what the finances were they would have stopped them & changed the cuts so not so many would have lost their jobs.
this comes from a Liberal Democrat not a Tory.
now back to this article! to close this story all Williams has to do is announce exactly what projects the money's going to & how much each one is going to receive & it's over unless your Mike Tucker
FoysCornerBoy
says...
8:47am Fri 1 Feb 13
aldermoorboy wrote:As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts......
Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth.
Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham?
This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership.
This would save the taxpayer millions.
southy
says...
11:40am Fri 1 Feb 13
bigfella777 wrote:No but it seems you must be, or have a very poor memory, Even Red1918 as a better idea what is going on and what this money to be put aside is all about
southy wrote:It is, they are saving jobs in youth services,libraries,c
All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.
reating apprenticeships, create jobs in green industries and keep the mayors chauffeur.
Cant you read, are you thick or something?
southy
says...
11:57am Fri 1 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:Williams is an estate agent, so he would be more use to doing 8 hours of paper work.
8 hours of paperwork, if only Williams could appreciate that, luckily he has a team to do that, which we pay for!
You also said
"The Unions do have far too much influence when it comes to a Labour Council. So, let's be fair and say yes Williams sucked up to them during his campaign, but also give him credit for standing up to them right now.
It also works the other way round, Bosses have to much influence with the Tory party who such up to them all the time and not just during there campaign they do it all the time.
Inform Al
says...
12:15pm Fri 1 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:I don't have a political gripe one way or the other, so I am able to follow the news without excluding some of it because of partisan ideals. What I said in my post is well known to those of us that do not suffer from selective hearing. I am also def not a trade unionist, due to their selling themselves to the devil when Brown was chancellor to the exchequer
Inform Al wrote:Funny I read the article exactly where did you get this information from as there was no complaining in the article?
Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.
Hannides was asking if Williams could be transparent & say how much & to where this money was going wasn't he?
You should watch the Andrew Marr show.Nick Clegg was on there he was asked if he felt the cuts were going to far?
his reply was because of the note found by Labour & the fact they didn't know how bad it was they couldn't stop the harsh cuts implemented by the out going Labour Government.
if they had known exactly what the finances were they would have stopped them & changed the cuts so not so many would have lost their jobs.
this comes from a Liberal Democrat not a Tory.
now back to this article! to close this story all Williams has to do is announce exactly what projects the money's going to & how much each one is going to receive & it's over unless your Mike Tucker
loosehead
says...
12:42pm Fri 1 Feb 13
FoysCornerBoy wrote:I'm not a footie fan but what your saying is tantamount to treason in football fans eyes.
aldermoorboy wrote:As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts......
Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth.
Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham?
This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership.
This would save the taxpayer millions.
why not go further & return power back to Hampshire council?
Labour fought to make us a unilateral Authority telling us our rates would drop which of course was a lie.
that Labour council forgot exactly how many staff they would have to employ & how much that would put on the rates .
But please tell what's wrong with the Island deal?
the Tory council went into talks with several councils & the Island being the one where most monies could be saved so they opted for that deal or doesn't that make financial sense to you?
FoysCornerBoy
says...
4:13pm Fri 1 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:Really? Pray tell me which Councils were spoken to and what deals were brokered. Is there any record of all this or do you have access to privileged information?
FoysCornerBoy wrote:I'm not a footie fan but what your saying is tantamount to treason in football fans eyes.
aldermoorboy wrote:As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts......
Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth.
Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham?
This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership.
This would save the taxpayer millions.
why not go further & return power back to Hampshire council?
Labour fought to make us a unilateral Authority telling us our rates would drop which of course was a lie.
that Labour council forgot exactly how many staff they would have to employ & how much that would put on the rates .
But please tell what's wrong with the Island deal?
the Tory council went into talks with several councils & the Island being the one where most monies could be saved so they opted for that deal or doesn't that make financial sense to you?
I think returning Southampton to a two tier authority under Hampshire is nonsensical and goes against the general drift towards unitary authorities across England. I bet the good people of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport and Havant would vote for having the same powers as Southampton, Portsmouth and the Island, if only they were asked.
loosehead
says...
4:47pm Fri 1 Feb 13
FoysCornerBoy wrote:but they nearly have those powers how else can eastleigh have fortnightly collections if they don't have that power?
loosehead wrote:Really? Pray tell me which Councils were spoken to and what deals were brokered. Is there any record of all this or do you have access to privileged information?
FoysCornerBoy wrote:I'm not a footie fan but what your saying is tantamount to treason in football fans eyes.
aldermoorboy wrote:As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts......
Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth.
Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham?
This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership.
This would save the taxpayer millions.
why not go further & return power back to Hampshire council?
Labour fought to make us a unilateral Authority telling us our rates would drop which of course was a lie.
that Labour council forgot exactly how many staff they would have to employ & how much that would put on the rates .
But please tell what's wrong with the Island deal?
the Tory council went into talks with several councils & the Island being the one where most monies could be saved so they opted for that deal or doesn't that make financial sense to you?
I think returning Southampton to a two tier authority under Hampshire is nonsensical and goes against the general drift towards unitary authorities across England. I bet the good people of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport and Havant would vote for having the same powers as Southampton, Portsmouth and the Island, if only they were asked.
southy says...
12:34pm Thu 31 Jan 13